UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI
Of Pinheads and
Patriots
Patriotic Representations on Two
Conservatives’ Cable News Shows
Jukka Kinnunen
Pro Gradu
English Philology
Department of Modern Languages
University of Helsinki
October 2013
Tiedekunta/Osasto – Fakultet/Sektion – Faculty Laitos – Institution – Department
Humanistinen tiedekunta
Nykykielten laitos
Tekijä – Författare – Author
Jukka Kinnunen
Työn nimi – Arbetets titel – Title
Of Pinheads and Patriots: Patriotic Representations on Two Conservatives’ Cable News Shows
Oppiaine – Läroämne – Subject
Englantilainen filologia
Työn laji – Arbetets art – Level Aika – Datum – Month and
Sivumäärä – Sidoantal – Number of pages
Pro Gradu
year
65
10/2013
Tiivistelmä – Referat – Abstract
Tämä pro gradu -tutkielma käsittelee yhdysvaltalaisten isänmaallisuuteen avoimesti vetoavien sanojen
käyttöä kahden amerikkalaisen konservatiivin uutisaiheisissa televisio-ohjelmissa. Bill O’Reillyn ja Sean
Hannityn ohjelmat ovat olleet kaapelikanavien katsotuimpien uutisohjelmien joukossa jo yli
vuosikymmenen ajan. Tutkielmassa selvitetään, miten O’Reillyn ja Hannityn ohjelmat tehostavat
mielikuvaa konservatiiveista patriootteina.
Päälähteenä tutkielmassa on Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA), jossa on tutkittavilta
vuosilta kyseisistä ohjelmista 1 258 624 sanaa. Valmiin korpuksen käyttö auttaa varmistamaan, ettei
tutkimusmateriaali ole puolueellinen tai muuten tarkoitusperiin valikoitu.
Sanat, joiden käyttöä tutkielmassa tarkastellaan, ovat patriot, patriots, patriotic, patriotism, unpatriotic,
un-American ja anti-American. Tutkittavat sanat, jotka pohjautuvat sanoihin patriot ja America, vetoavat
avoimesti amerikkalaisten isänmaallisiin tunteisiin. Analyysiä syvennetään ottamalla tutkimukseen myös
selvästi negatiivisia konnotaatioita synnyttäviä sanoja.
Tekstuaalisen analyysin perustana on monitieteellinen kriittinen diskurssianalyysi, joka lähtökohtaisesti
tutkii kielenkäytön ja vallan suhdetta. Tämän tutkielman metodologiaan on vaikuttanut erityisesti Teun
van Dijkin kognitiivisia, sosiaalisia ja diskursiivisia elementtejä korostava kriittisen diskurssianalyysin
lähestymistapa. Lisäksi tutkielmassa analysoidaan perinteiseen retoriikan jakoon (logiikkaan,
luotettavuuteen ja tunteeseen) perustuen, miten patriotismiin vetoavilla sanoilla pyritään vaikuttamaan
yleisöön. Samalla tarkastellaan, minkälaisissa konteksteissa konservatiivit käyttävät isänmaallisuuteen
vetoavia sanoja. Näin pyritään syventämään ymmärrystä siitä, mitä konservatiivit ylipäätään pitävät
patriotismina.
Analyysi osoitti, että O’Reillyn ja Hannityn ohjelmat vahvistavat mielikuvaa konservatiivien patriotismista
kuvaamalla johdonmukaisesti konservatiiveja tai konservatiivien ideologian mukaista toimintaa
positiivisilla, isänmaallisuuteen vetoavilla sanoilla. Vastaavasti liberaaleja ja liberaalien toimintaa
kuvattiin pääsääntöisesti negatiivisilla, isänmaallisuuteen vetoavilla sanoilla. Sekä O’Reillyn että
Hannityn ohjelmissa oli analyysin mukaan ihmisryhmiä, joiden patriotismi hyväksyttiin
itsestäänselvyytenä. Isänmaallisuuteen vetoavia sanoja esiintyi ohjelmissa monissa erilaisissa
konteksteissa, mikä alleviivaa patriotismin tärkeyttä Yhdysvaltain politiikassa sekä O’Reillyn ja Hannityn
halukkuutta vaikuttaa politiikkaan vetoamalla katsojiensa isänmaallisuuteen.
Avainsanat – Nyckelord – Keywords
Patriotismi, konservatismi, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, kriittinen diskurssianalyysi, Teun van Dijk, COCA, poliittinen retoriikka,
Yhdysvallat
Säilytyspaikka – Förvaringställe – Where deposited
Helsingin yliopisto, Keskustakampuksen kirjasto
Muita tietoja – Övriga uppgifter – Additional information
i
Table of Contents
1
Introduction ....................................................................... 1
2
Research Questions ........................................................... 2
3
Background ....................................................................... 3
3.1 Political Divide in the United States ............................ 3
3.2 Concept of Patriotism .................................................. 4
3.2.1 Perspectives on American Patriotism ................... 7
3.2.2 McCarthyism ...................................................... 10
3.3 Rhetoric...................................................................... 12
3.4 Defining an Ideology ................................................. 12
3.4.1 Ideology .............................................................. 13
3.4.2 Conservatism: an Ideology and a Movement ..... 15
4
Methodology ................................................................... 17
4.1 Critical Discourse Analysis ....................................... 17
4.2 Traditional Rhetorical Analysis ................................. 19
5
Data ................................................................................. 21
5.1 Corpus of Contemporary American English ............. 21
5.2 Bill O’Reilly .............................................................. 23
5.3 Sean Hannity.............................................................. 25
6
Analysis .......................................................................... 26
6.1 The O’Reilly Factor...................................................... 26
6.1.1 Pinheads and Patriots .......................................... 27
6.1.2 Positive Uses of Flag-wavers.............................. 30
6.1.3 Negative Uses of Flag-wavers ............................ 32
6.1.4 Broader Contexts ................................................ 35
6.2 Hannity (& Colmes) ................................................... 37
6.2.1 Positive Uses of Flag-wavers.............................. 39
6.2.2 Victimization ...................................................... 42
6.2.3 Attacking Liberals .............................................. 44
6.2.4 Broader Contexts ................................................ 51
6.3 Similarities and Differences ...................................... 53
7
Conclusions..................................................................... 55
REFERENCES ....................................................................... 59
ii
List of Tables
TABLE 1: DESCRIBING AND ATTRIBUTING POSITIVE ACTION (VAN DIJK 1995: 144) ...............................18
TABLE 2: DISTRIBUTION OF FLAG-WAVERS ON THE O'REILLY FACTOR .................................................27
TABLE 3: OVERALL USAGE OF POSITIVE FLAG-WAVERS COMPARED TO "PINHEADS & PATRIOTS" ..............30
TABLE 4: USE OF FLAG-WAVERS ON THE O'REILLY FACTOR BY CONTEXT ..............................................36
TABLE 5: DISTRIBUTION OF FLAG-WAVERS ON HANNITY (& COLMES)..................................................38
TABLE 6: CONSERVATIVES' USE OF FLAG-WAVERS ON HANNITY (& COLMES) BY CONTEXT ......................51
TABLE 7: COMPARATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF FLAG-WAVERS ON THE TWO SHOWS....................................53
1
1
Introduction
The purpose of this study is to take an analytical look at how a set of words which
have an overt appeal to an audience’s patriotic feelings are used on Fox News
Channel’s opinion programs hosted by Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity. The Los
Angeles Times article, “This Isn’t Patriotism,” declares that for the past 30 years:
“conservatives have treated patriotism as their own gated community” (Nunberg
2006-09-09). This paper intends to explore if there is any evidence of conservatives
treating patriotism as their dominion, and how the conservative rule over patriotism
is perpetuated on The O’Reilly Factor, Hannity & Colmes, Hannity’s America, and
Hannity; shows that have consistently been among the highest rated cable news
shows for the last decade. Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity are not only popular
television show hosts but they are also known as influential opinion leaders for
American conservatives. Both of them have had long and illustrious careers on the
Fox News Channel, with millions of viewers every weekday (NY Times: Stelter
2012-04-19).
The words that I have decided to study are “patriot,” “patriots,”
“patriotic,” “patriotism,” “unpatriotic,” “anti-American” and “un-American.” I
believe that these seven words (“flag-wavers” henceforth) will be a sufficient sample
to be indicative of the use of explicitly patriotic rhetoric. Obviously, there are only
two root words which are “patriot” and “American.” These two words are explicitly
patriotic by nature, and thus a good basis for the study. It is also my specific
intention to include words which are, from an American point of view, by nature
unpatriotic (unpatriotic, anti-American, and un-American) to see whether their use
differs significantly from the use of the words with positive connotations.
Critical discourse analysis, which examines relationships of language
and power, will provide the tools for the textual analysis of the data. I will also use
the traditional rhetorical divide of logic, emotion, and credibility as the basis for
analyzing how the speaker is trying to affect the audience. A combination of these
two approaches will hopefully reveal if indeed conservatives have claimed dominion
over patriotism, and if their use of flag-wavers perpetuates the perception of
conservatives as patriots. I will also examine the broader contexts in which flag-
2
wavers are used; how the words are used in different contexts, and to what or to
whom the negative and positive connotations are attributed to. This could reveal
what conservatives themselves think of as patriotism.
The hypothesis of this study is that conservatives want to perpetuate the
image of themselves as patriots and that this is evident in their use of explicitly
patriotic language. I expect to find an ideological bias in the ways that flag-wavers
are used. Furthermore, to enhance the image of conservatives as patriots and as the
gatekeepers of patriotism, I expect conservatives’ use of flag-wavers to extend to a
wide variety of contexts and that their use might not always fit the traditional
dictionary definitions of the words.
The primary source of material for this study will be the Corpus of
Contemporary American English, or COCA (Davies 2008– ). Using a readily
available corpus should ensure the objectivity of the data as it prohibits the
researcher from selecting only the data that appeals to their hypotheses.
2
Research Questions
In this study I intend to examine conservatives’ use of overtly patriotic rhetoric.
However, as the scope of the study is limited, the research questions will be more
localized and I will try to avoid jumping to unwarranted conclusions of any broader
patterns. As this study deals mostly with how and in what contexts flag-wavers are
used and whether they are used deliberately to enhance the image of conservatives as
patriotic, the research questions are as follows:
1. Does the use of flag-wavers on O’Reilly’s and Hannity’s shows support
Nunberg’s assertion that conservatives have claimed dominion over
patriotism?
2. On O’Reilly’s and Hannity’s shows, to whom or to what political issues are
the positive and negative patriotic attributes attached?
3. What kind of patterns can be found in how conservatives use flag-wavers?
4. Does the use of flag-wavers on these shows perpetuate the image of
conservatives as patriots?
3
3
Background
This chapter of the paper aims to offer background information and insights to the
central themes of the study and to explain the significance of this study. The first
section (3.1) in this chapter will shed some light on the background behind the
political divide in the United States. The second section (3.2) will discuss the concept
of patriotism and then more specifically the concept of American patriotism. The
third section (3.3) discusses a few common misconceptions about rhetoric and looks
to rectify them. Because this paper deals with ideologies, the fourth section (3.4) in
this chapter will strive to define what ideologies are in general and then define what
conservatism is as an ideology.
3.1 Political Divide in the United States
It is an often repeated axiom that the United States is now more politically polarized
than ever before, with the exception of the Civil War era. The divide is said to be
with the coasts and the heartland, the Republicans and the Democrats, the
conservatives and the liberals, the blue states and the red states, the Left-wing and
the Right-wing. Whatever the opposing sides are called, it is generally accepted that
the divide is great. The ideologies behind the terms follow roughly the same lines
whatever the names. I find that the most meaningful divide, in terms of this study, is
between conservative and liberal because this underlines the differences in core
values of the opposing sides. As the focus of this study is on the language used by
media personalities, it is more important to focus on the values rather than political
parties or geographical locations.
As for the origins of the political gridlock in the United States, H.
Woody Brock (2012) suggests five developments that have taken place in the last 50
years which have contributed to the “Dialogue of the Deaf,” as he calls today’s
political discourse. Firstly, the culture wars of the 60s and 70s expanded the realm of
political discussion into topics that were personal and very emotional; ranging from
differing views on the Vietnam draft, sexual liberation, and abortion debates to the
views on child education. Brock suggests that the environment forced people to
4
choose sides in a binary fashion, which did not elevate the level of discussion.
Secondly, Brock suggests that the method of political debate changed during the
culture wars. He argues that the decline of Plato’s “dialectical method,” which
requires participants to follow basic rules of deductive logic from proposition A to B
and on to C all the way to a conclusion Z, coincided with the expanding gulf caused
by the culture wars. Thirdly, at the same time the use of inductive logic, which bases
its conclusions on legitimate data, gained momentum. The problem with using
inductive logic in shaping policies, according to Brock, is that it allows the
participants to choose which facts to use and to ignore the facts that do not support
the wanted conclusion. The fourth factor Brock brings up is changes in lifestyle and
technology. Developments in TV and internet technologies have made life ever faster
paced and political commentators have become brand names. The internet also works
as a bottomless source of data for those who use inductive logic in their reasoning.
Fifth on Brock’s list of developments is the increased amount of “gerrymandering”,
which refers to efforts of manipulating electoral district boundaries in order to gain
safe congressional seats for the preferred party. Safe seats, according to Brock, lead
to an increase in the number of uncompromising politicians, as those who are not at
risk of losing their seats do not have to appeal to the electorate of the opposing party.
Brock offers these five factors as the source for the political gridlock in Washington.
Although Brock’s list is reasoned and justified, I would add the
influence of negative campaigning as a factor that has contributed to the polarization
of the country. Besides elections, negative campaigning is used to influence public
opinion on hot topic issues like the healthcare reform in 2009 or changes in gun laws
at the start of 2013. In the concluding remarks of Going Negative, Ansolahabere and
Iyengar (1995: 150) note that the gridlock and hostilities between the two parties will
only feed more negative campaigns creating a vicious cycle.
3.2 Concept of Patriotism
Because this study is also somewhat concerned with semantics, it is good to have a
clear understanding of the meanings of the flag-wavers. Not all these words can be
found in all dictionaries, which is a little surprising considering how fluently they are
used. In a way, this also underlines the need for studies like this. It is important to
5
understand how these highly emotional words are used in political settings. Because,
as stated before, not all of the words can be found in every dictionary, and for the
sake of thoroughness, I have gathered these definitions from The New Oxford
American Dictionary ([2010] 2012) and the McMillan English Dictionary: For
Advanced Learners ([2002] 2004) to provide traditional dictionary definitions for the
words that are so central to the study.
Patriot (Noun)
1. ‘someone who has strong feelings of love, respect, and duty towards their
country’ (McMillan English Dictionary)
2. ‘a person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it
against enemies or detractors
2. (Patriot) trademark an automated surface-to-air missile designed for preemptive
strikes’ (The New Oxford American Dictionary)
Patriotism (Noun)
1. ‘strong feelings of love, respect, and duty towards their country’ (McMillan
English Dictionary)
Patriotic (Adjective)
1. ‘feeling a lot of love, respect, and duty towards their country’ (McMillan
English Dictionary)
2. ‘having or expressing devotion to and vigorous support for one's country:
today's game will be played before a fiercely patriotic crowd’ (New Oxford
American Dictionary)
Unpatriotic (Adjective)
1. ‘not proud of your country, or involved in something that harms your
country’ (McMillan English Dictionary)
2. ‘not patriotic’ (New Oxford American Dictionary)
6
Un-American (Adjective)
1. ‘not typical of the attitudes, ways of life etc that are approved of or
considered normal in the US
2. un-American political activities are considered to be harmful to the US’
(McMillan English Dictionary)
2. ‘not in accordance with American characteristics: such un-American
concepts as subsidized medicine’ (New Oxford American Dictionary)
Anti-American (Adjective)
1. ‘hostile to the interests of the United States; opposed to Americans’ (New
Oxford American Dictionary)
These are the dictionary definitions of the flag-wavers that are at the center of this
study. However, as I stated before, it is my hypothesis that at times these words take
on other broader meanings, beyond their dictionary definitions. For the sake of
brevity and clarity, I decided to refer to them as flag-wavers, as I believe that they
arouse patriotic feelings in the audience.
Patriotism is an interesting concept to study because it is so utterly
abstract. It is not something that one can count or grade by any objective standard,
but everyone has their individual views of what is or is not patriotic. The views on
patriotism may even be starkly contrasting, as Gelpi, Roselle and Barnett (2012)
point out in a study which aims to map out predictability of emotional responses
evoked by images of the American flag. The hypothesis of their study is that they can
predict who will respond in ways which either emphasize compliance to authority or
emphasize personal liberty and freedom from authority. These contrastive views
emphasize the subjective nature of patriotism. Gelpi, Roselle and Barnett also argue
that the use of patriotic imagery with such radically different responses on patriotism
will lead to further polarization instead of unity (ibid). I find it interesting and
almost paradoxical that ideas about patriotism can divide a country. The following
subsections chart some historical and contemporary aspects about American
patriotism that are of particular interest.
7
3.2.1
Perspectives on American Patriotism
The first thing to note about American patriotism is that those who are often
considered to be the first American patriots were revolutionaries to the British realm.
This is important because it has consequences on how patriotism is viewed today. It
highlights the view that patriotism is not necessarily obedience to authority but
reverence to rights and ideals, among which The Declaration of Independence
famously asserts are “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”. Today, Ron Paul,
(2011: 218) an influential conservative in the libertarian sense of the word, argues
that at the heart of American patriotism is love of liberty. However, he goes on to
argue that today, for some, blind obedience to government passes as patriotism. “Call
it Patriotism and opposition disappears” (ibid: 219) is Paul’s disillusioned take on
how appeals to the patriotic feelings of the public are used. Indeed, his warnings
echo the famous quotation “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel” (ibid) from
the British 18th century writer Samuel Johnson. This quotation, though not of
American origin, points out the suspicion some feel toward self-professed patriots.
Certainly, there are examples in American history of calls for patriotism being used
as a tool to quiet down the opposition – arguably none as infamous as the era of
McCarthyism in the 1950s, which will be discussed in section 3.2.2.
Alexis de Tocqueville, a French philosopher and historian, travelled
around the United States in the early 19th century and wrote a comprehensive book
named Democracy in America (1835). In the book he talks several times of
American patriotism, and here I would like to call attention to a few of de
Tocqueville’s notions. Firstly, he equates American patriotism to religion (de
Tocqueville [1835] 2004: 76). Secondly, already in the 1830s he remarked that
patriotism was a pervasive sentiment in America (ibid: 106). Thirdly, he noted that
the citizens were not necessarily patriotic toward the Union but toward their own
respective provinces, and that the “public spirit of the Union was in a sense simply a
concentrated form of provincial patriotism” (ibid: 184). All of these are interesting
notions in their own right.
De Tocqueville’s analogy of patriotism as a religion is intriguing and
enduring. Still today, there are manifestations of American patriotism which are
reminiscent of religious practices. For example some feel that the act of desecrating
the American flag is a sacrilegious act, which should be prohibited by law. Similarly
8
reverence is exhibited toward the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution
of the United States, which could be considered sacred texts to take the analogy
further.
From a historical perspective it is interesting how quickly Americans
acquired strong patriotic identities, especially considering how many of them must
have been first or second generation immigrants. However, it is also interesting that
their patriotism was not necessarily for the United States but toward their provinces.
Considering this background of regional loyalties, it is also easier to fathom how the
United States eventually drifted into a civil war. Indeed, arguably one of the best
known examples of conflicting loyalties is the Confederate Civil War general Robert
E. Lee. While he felt loyalty toward the Union at the start of the Civil War, he
resigned from the U.S. army and accepted the command of Virginia’s state army
(Gallagher 2011). His decision, according to Gallagher (2011), was not an easy one
to make, but he chose to abide by the loyalties he felt not only toward his state of
Virginia but also toward the slaveholding aristocracy of the South and the federalist
ideals passed on to him by his father. Although I would not suggest that Americans
today would not feel allegiance to their home states, the feeling is probably not as
dominant today as it was in de Tocqueville’s time.
De Tocqueville found that patriotism was a pervasive sentiment in the
United States already in the early 19th century. Today surveys indicate that feelings
of patriotism have not waned. Patriotism as a concept may be elusive and impossible
to measure in objective standards, but this has not stopped pollsters from trying to
measure relative levels of patriotism of people from different backgrounds. In an
international survey conducted in 33 countries by the International Social Surveys
Program in 2003/4, Americans and Venezuelans topped the list of countries with the
highest level of national pride (Smith 2006: 11).
The patriotism of Americans has also been ranked by political
affiliations. Nunberg (2009: 176) cites a Fox News poll which shows that two thirds
of Americans and 80 percent of Republicans claim to be more patriotic than the
average American. Considering the subjective nature of patriotism, it is an interesting
notion that some are more or less patriotic than others. A more recent poll by Gallup
in June 2010 gives similar results. Of the respondents, a staggering 48 percent of
those who identified themselves as conservatives said that they were extremely
patriotic and 39 percent said they were very patriotic. Of liberals, only 19 percent
9
said that they were extremely patriotic but still 41 percent said they were very
patriotic. These polls indicate that not only are conservatives perceived as more
patriotic, as Nunberg suggests, but they also feel that they are more patriotic than
others. Furthermore, it can be deduced that generally patriotism is viewed positively,
as it seems unlikely that so many respondents would describe themselves negatively.
As subjective as the idea of patriotism may be, it would be foolish to
undermine its importance in American politics. Keller (2005: 563) suggests that
patriotism is considered a virtue in the United States, and that politicians would
rather be branded as selfish or corrupt than unpatriotic. The flag pin controversy
during the 2008 presidential election cycle is a good example of a seemingly benign
issue which became news. Then-presidential candidate Barack Obama’s patriotism
was questioned because he did not wear a lapel pin of the American flag as was
customary for the presidential candidates. According to TIME magazine (TIME:
Cruz: 2008-08-03), Obama explained that he did not want to wear the flag lapel pin
because he felt that not everyone who wore it acted very patriotically, and he would
rather express his beliefs verbally: hoping that it would be enough of a testimony of
his patriotism. This did not appease the press or the public, and the result of the
growing controversy was that, as the TIME article so eloquently expressed it,
“Obama now wears a flag pin on his lapel. Every day” (ibid). As stated before,
patriotism is not gradable or countable by any objective standard, thus it is difficult
to prove that someone is or is not patriotic. Then, in the domain of politics, it can be
said that perception is reality and indeed it is the cable news shows that at least to
some extent control that perception. Considering that something as seemingly trivial
as a lapel pin can spark such a controversy, it is also important to study and
understand how patriotic ideas can be utilized in language.
10
3.2.2
McCarthyism
‘a vociferous campaign against alleged communists in the US
government and other institutions carried out under Senator Joseph
McCarthy in the period 1950–54. Many of the accused were
blacklisted or lost their jobs, although most did not in fact belong to
the Communist Party.
a campaign or practice that endorses the use of unfair
allegations and investigations’
(New Oxford American Dictionary)
McCarthyism is a topic I wish to bring up for two reasons: Firstly, it is a historical
example of how the freedoms of the citizens of the United States have been limited
in the name patriotism. Secondly, it is an example of public litmus tests of patriotism
imposed on Americans. I would avoid drawing parallels between McCarthyism and
today's political rhetoric, but the era of McCarthyism is also a precedent as to what
kind of consequences excessively strident patriotic rhetoric can have.
The term “McCarthyism” originally refers to the witch-hunts for
supposed communists in the United States in the early 1950s, more specifically from
1950 to 1954. Since then the term has also been used in broader contexts of
questioning someone’s patriotism for political reasons. The name of the term
originates from the name of Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy who sprang into
the national spotlight after a speech he gave in Wheeling, West Virginia on February
9th, 1950 (Schrecker 1994: 63). In the speech he declared that he had in his
possession a list of Communist agents who had infiltrated the State Department
(Schrecker 1994: 62). According to Bowen (2011: 11), the motivation behind
McCarthy’s tactics was his ambition to further his personal political career; and
according to Schrecker (1994: 210), to attack the Truman administration.
Considering those foundations for McCarthy’s tactics, it is quite extraordinary that
the subsequent victim, according to many scholars, was the freedom of speech
(Bowen 2011: 11).
By 1950 anti-Communism was not a new phenomenon in American
politics. The House Un-American Acts Committee (HUAC) had been formed in
11
1938. Communists had been barred from government jobs as early as 1939
(Schrecker 1994: 26). A loyalty program, which looked for Communist ties or
sympathies of all federal employees, was implemented in 1947, and the first trial
started in the summer of 1948 (Schrecker 1994: 41–42). According to Schrecker
(1994: 42), one of FBI director J. Edgar Hoover’s main lieutenants explained that the
subsequent trial would showcase to the public “’that Communism is dangerous’, that
the party ‘advocates the overthrow of the government by force and violence,’ and
that ‘the patriotism of Communists is not directed toward the United States but
toward the Soviet Union.’” In foreign policy the Truman Doctrine of aiding free
peoples in resisting the spread of communism had been successfully carried out in
Greece and Turkey (Schrecker 1994: 21).
Considering the rather extensive measures taken against the
Communist threat during the previous decade, it may seem surprising that McCarthy
became such an influential figure. Schrecker (1994) explains that the actual
Communist threat was exaggerated in many ways, on multiple levels of government
and in the public, over a long period of time. However, the perception was that the
threat was real. McCarthy tapped into this fear and enflamed these sentiments for
political gain. It was his populist rhetoric and his “blatant disregard for accuracy of
his charges” that helped him to become such an influential figure (Schrecker 1994:
63).
The end of the age of McCarthyism was a set of Senate hearings in
which McCarthy himself was questioned for forcing the Army to “give preferential
treatment for a member of his staff” (Schrecker 1994: 64). The hearings culminated
in a famous moment when McCarthy was preparing to question the patriotism of a
young associate attorney of the law firm representing the Army who retorted “Have
you no sense of decency, Sir?” (Schrecker 1994: 65). According to Schrecker this
echoed the feelings of millions of Americans. Ultimately, the Senate officially
reprimanded McCarthy and his importance waned on after that.
As I stated before, I would not draw parallels between the times of
McCarthyism and today’s political rhetoric. Having said that, it is imperative to
understand that there is a history of using charges of lack of patriotism for political
gain. This, on the one hand, supports my assumption that perceived patriotism is a
form of gaining power, and on the other hand emphasizes the need for critical
examination of patriotic rhetoric.
12
3.3 Rhetoric
As a lay term “rhetoric” has a bad reputation, and this is especially true in the realm
of politics. Rhetoric is often associated with empty talk, or use of grandiose imagery,
and with politicians making promises they have no intention of keeping (Stoner and
Perkins 2005: 6). As this study focuses on TV-shows dealing with mainly political
discussions, it is prudent to adjust such narrow-minded and misguided notions.
Stoner and Perkins’ (ibid) useful definition for rhetoric is to view it “as messages that
rely on verbal and nonverbal symbols that more or less intentionally influence social
attitudes, values, beliefs, and actions.” Study of rhetoric is concerned with how
speakers structure persuasive arguments and what kind of strategies they use. Indeed,
“rhetorical messages” are limited to neither politics nor speech. Even in the realm of
political speeches there are many “rhetorical acts.” Consider George W. Bush’s
speech to the rescue workers on September 14th, 2001 at Ground Zero in New York
(YouTube: George W. Bush – 9/11 Bullhorn Speech). He had his arm around a
rescue worker, spoke into a bullhorn (rather than a microphone), wore informal
clothes (rather than a suit), against the backdrop of the ruins of the World Trade
Center. All of these are rhetorical acts and they are immensely important to the
overall effect.
This study explores how conservatives on O’Reilly’s and Hannity’s
cable news shows use explicitly patriotic rhetoric in their speech. Thus the only
rhetorical act this study is concerned with is text. Although O’Reilly and Hannity are
not politicians per se, they are political actors and this study belongs to the realm of
political rhetoric, which is a diverse field with approaches ranging from linguistics to
political theory, communication studies, and psychology (Condor, Tileagă, and Billig
2013: 2). For the purposes of this study critical discourse analysis and analysis on
traditional rhetorical appeal will be deployed. The methods will be discussed in detail
in chapter 4.
3.4 Defining an Ideology
Earlier I stated my belief that a divide between conservatism and liberalism would be
the most meaningful for the purposes of this study, because it emphasizes ideological
13
differences instead of differences between political parties. As this study then deals
with ideologies, it is necessary to first develop a definition for the term “ideology”
and then come up with a helpful definition for “conservatism.”
3.4.1
Ideology
“Ideology” is somewhat of an elusive concept in part because of the multitude of
approaches to ideologies from different schools of academia. Thus it is necessary to
outline what is meant by ideology in terms of this study. My definition comes from
Teun A. van Dijk, a scholar in the field of critical discourse analysis, who has been
successful in terms of defining what ideology is and is not for his linguistic purposes.
He has found a multidisciplinary approach useful in his studies of ideologies. More
specifically he combines cognitive, social, and discursive components in his
approach. I will briefly discuss his views on each component and explain why they
contribute to the definition of ideology.
According to van Dijk (1998: 126) ideologies are “first of all systems
of beliefs.” However, he uses the word “belief” as a technical term which entails the
traditional ideas of knowledge and beliefs (ibid: 18–19). According to his view
“knowledge” is “a specific category of beliefs” which are considered “true beliefs
according to certain grounds or (truth) criteria.” Furthermore, van Dijk says beliefs
entail all products of thinking, including opinions. Thus the definition “ideologies are
systems of beliefs” would entail subjective truths (beliefs and opinions) and
perceived objective truths (or knowledge). Now that I have established this broad
cognitive spread of what can be considered to belong in ideologies, I will move on to
the social and sociocognitive aspects of ideologies.
Van Dijk (1998 and 2006) is keen on making comparisons between
languages and ideologies because they share similar properties. One of those
properties is that just as no-one has a personal language; similarly no-one has a
personal ideology. Rather ideologies, like languages, are “socially shared” (van Dijk
2006: 116). Naturally, there are personal beliefs (beliefs, opinions, and knowledge)
but they, as such, do not belong in the realm of ideologies. Although ideologies
belong to social groups, group members can reproduce and use their ideologies
individually (van Dijk 1998: 29). Because ideologies are socially shared, ideological
14
beliefs must be more general and often abstract in nature (van Dijk 2006: 116). It is
also important to make a distinction between “cultural beliefs” and “group beliefs.”
Cultural beliefs are according to van Dijk (1998: 37), “general, taken-for-granted
beliefs of a whole society or culture” whereas group beliefs are “more specific, often
partisan, beliefs of various social groups within such an overall culture.” Van Dijk
(1998, 2006) explores these relations further but for my intents and purposes it is
sufficient to accept his notion that cultural beliefs and especially “cultural
knowledge” acts as the “basis of evaluative beliefs” (ibid: 39), which relate closely to
ideologies. That means different groups may have different opinions regarding the
war on terror or immigration, but having differing opinions presupposes some level
of common cultural knowledge or shared beliefs. Although ideologies can be used by
all members of an ideological group, not all group members are required to know
their ideology equally well.
Discourse relates to ideologies as natural means of expression and
reproduction. Ideologies could hardly be developed, spread, changed, or reaffirmed
by their group members without text and talk, or discourse (van Dijk 2006: 115).
Because discourse is the main conduit for expression and reproduction of ideologies,
critical discourse analysis (CDA) offers a valid approach to the study of ideologies.
How methods of critical discourse analysis can be applied to the study of ideologies
will be discussed in detail in section 4.1, as my methods of textual analysis are drawn
from CDA.
In this section I have strived to gather some of the aspects of what
ideologies consist of especially in social and cultural contexts. I will conclude that
based on van Dijk’s views, according to my definition, ideologies are systems of
socially shared general group beliefs which are expressed and reproduced through
discourse by the group members of that ideology.
15
3.4.2
Conservatism: an Ideology and a Movement
“Conservatism conserves the American republic by supporting its
theoretical foundation of natural rights” (Ceaser 2011: 149).
Defining “conservatism” is not as simple a task as it might seem. Part of the reason
for that is that there is not a sole source for ideological framework. Chip Berlet and
Matthew N. Lyons (2000: 417–418) divided conservatism into six sectors, but I am
happy with James W. Ceaser’s (2011: 142–146) division into four sects within the
conservative movement: “traditionalists,” “religious right,” “libertarians,” and
“neoconservatives.” Ceaser’s division is based on what are the foundations of how
people judge what is good or bad. Traditionalists look to cultural history for
guidance, the religious right looks to the Bible, libertarians believe in spontaneous
order so that things in general have a tendency to work out if not meddled with, and
neoconservatives believe in reason. Ceaser’s division of conservative factions is
helpful not only in defining the origins of conservative ideology but also in defining
conservative ideology altogether.
In 1938 Robert Taft became the first prominent Republican to label
himself as a conservative after Franklin D. Roosevelt had branded liberals as wanting
freedom from “economic tyranny” (Farber 2010: 1). Already by the end of the 1930s,
politicians and voters alike labeled themselves as liberals or conservatives (ibid).
Throughout the 1940s, Taft promoted small federal government, federalism, and a
foreign policy which put the interests of the United States before the interests of
others (Bowen 2011: 6). These theses are still at the center of today’s conservative
movement.
Modern conservatism is an ideology that arose from the opposition of
New Deal liberalism (Farber 2010: 1), and it is still largely driven by the opposition
of modern day liberalism (Ceaser 2011: 141), which is natural for ideological
opposites. Thus, it is prudent to look into what in liberalism is objectionable for
conservatives. Ceaser (2011: 146–147) lays out the foundational conservative
objections to liberalism, which are based on the division (traditionalists, the religious
right, libertarians, and neoconservatives) discussed earlier. The traditionalists object
to the progressivism of liberalism; the religious right objects the secularism; the
16
libertarians object to liberalisms “preference for regulating and planning” (Ceaser
2011: 146); the neoconservatives object to the relativism of liberalism in the sense
that from the liberal point of view there is not a fundamental power of good in the
world.
Despite the foundational differences that the conservative sects have
they share an ideology, i.e., they share a system of general beliefs. For conservatism
to be able to act as an umbrella ideology for different factions, it needs to be
attractive to them. There may be parts in the ideology which are not agreeable to
every conservative. However, every member of an ideological group does not need
to have an exactly identical ideological system of beliefs, as was stated in the
discussion about ideology (section 3.4.1).
In short, the central theses of modern conservatism, which is the
counterforce of the liberal movement in America, are the limited role of the federal
government, federalism, deregulation of the economy, and the Christian tradition as
the backbone of American morality. Although these theses could be discussed in
greater detail it is not within the scope of this study. It will be enough to
acknowledge these ideologically shared beliefs and to recognize that they originate
from Taft’s ideals and from the different factions within the conservative movement.
The objects of this study are, of course, individuals. Their values and
opinions are their own and do not always reflect all the values and ideals of a
political ideology. They might even, from time to time, air their disappointment in
the actions of the Republican Party, but by my judgment they are indeed
conservatives in terms of their values. Furthermore, in 2010 The Telegraph’s Toby
Harnden (2010-01-11, 2010-01-14) ranked Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity as the
85th and 23rd most influential conservatives, respectively. Moreover, according to
Teun van Dijk (2006: 119) all members of a social group do not have to adhere to
identical ideological systems, but they share at least a few basic principles. This
definition allows me to treat the individuals in this study as group members of the
conservative ideology; even if their views are not identical.
17
4
Methodology
From a linguistic point of view this study could be considered eclectic; it could be
placed at a crossroads of pragmatic, semantic, discourse analysis, and even
sociolinguistic studies. However, my main approach is a combination of critical
discourse analysis and rhetorical studies. I feel that these are the fields that have the
most to offer for my research questions, as both fields are concerned with how
language influences people. It will be necessary to combine qualitative and
quantitative methods. Qualitative methods are the backbone of this study and
quantitative methods will act in a supportive role for the analysis, which makes them
no less essential to the study.
4.1 Critical Discourse Analysis
Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is a good base for my study because CDA is
interested in the relationship between language and power. More specifically, CDA
is focused on how societal structures of power and dominance are enacted,
legitimized, reproduced or challenged through the use of language (van Dijk 2001:
353). I assume that being perceived as patriotic is a form of gaining power, and that
perceptions of patriotism are ideologically controlled in the media through the use of
language. What makes defining CDA troublesome is that there is not a single set of
theories and methodologies, but rather there are as many approaches to CDA as there
are CDA scholars (Wodak 2003: 12). The upside of not having a holistic
methodology is that I can compile a methodology that best helps me in tackling the
data and research questions and not be held back by strict guidelines. My approach is
heavily influenced by the theories of Teun van Dijk (1995, 1998, 2001, 2006, and
2009), whose studies have mostly focused on how racism is reproduced in the news.
Van Dijk (1995: 143) states that we can make rather reliable inferences
about the underlying ideologies in given texts. He continues by highlighting that for
any analytically explicit study there is a need to “specify what expressions or
meanings of discourse give rise to what kind of inferences or other mental steps”
(ibid). For this study, I have selected seven lexical items, of which four bear more
18
positive connotations (patriot, patriots, patriotic, and patriotism) and three have
clearly negative connotations from an American point of view (unpatriotic, unAmerican, and anti-American). In critical discourse analysis the study of “local
meanings” may be applied to, for instance, meanings of words, structures, and
relations between propositions (van Dijk 2009: 69). As one of the hypotheses of this
paper is that there are some extended meanings for flag-wavers, it will be useful to
study the local meanings of the words. Furthermore, I am certain that it will be useful
to look at what kind of implications and presuppositions can be found when flagwavers are used. These approaches should also be useful in determining what kind of
rhetoric strategies the speaker is using.
Positive self-presentation and negative other-presentation, according
van Dijk (2006: 124), are well-established strategies used to reveal ideological
structures in discourse. The left side column of Table 1 lists structures and strategies
that enhance positive self-presentation when attributing positive action to the
ingroup. The right hand side column of Table 1 establishes structures and strategies
that can be used to undermine positive actions of an outgroup. These strategies are
also strategies of polarization, as the specific intention is to convey a positive image
of the ingroup and negative image of the outgroup (van Dijk 2006: 124).
Table 1: Describing and Attributing Positive Action (van Dijk 1995: 144)
Ingroup
Outgroup
Emphasis
Assertion
Hyperbole
Topicalization
- Sentential (micro)
- Textual (macro)
High, prominent position
Headlining, summarizing
Detailed description
Attribution to personality
Explicit
Direct
Narrative illustration
Argumentative support
Impression management
De-emphasis
Denial
Understatement
De-topicalization
Low, non-prominent position
Marginalization
Vague, overall description
Attribution to context
Implicit
Indirect
No storytelling
No argumentative support
No impression management
19
Van Dijk (1995: 144, 2006: 124) also argues that reverse strategies will be used in
contexts of negative actions. Thus on the one hand negative actions of the ingroup
will be mitigated through de-emphasis, denial, understatement, and so on. On the
other hand, the negative actions of an outgroup will be emphasized, asserted, made
explicit, and so on.
Assuming that intuition can be trusted in determining the ideological
balance of a given discourse, as van Dijk (1995: 143) suggests, it should be
reasonably easy to infer the ingroup and outgroup in my data. As was suggested
earlier, simply pointing out the groups in question would not be very analytical.
Analyzing the strategies of positive self-presentation and negative other-presentation
will hopefully reveal patterns in the ways flag-wavers are used as rhetorical tools.
The emerging patterns should then be discussed in connection with traditional
rhetorical analysis.
Influential CDA researcher and theorist Norman Fairclough (1995: 28–
30) admits that van Dijk’s approach has merit, but he is also critical of some aspects
of it. Firstly, it focuses on representations, not giving enough attention to
“interpersonal function of language” (Fairclough 1995: 30). Secondly, it does not
complement linguistic analysis with intertextual analysis, and thirdly, van Dijk does
not recognize the diversity and heterogeneity of backgrounds from which
newsmakers reproduce racist ideologies (ibid). To counter Fairclough’s critique I
have, firstly, adopted aspects of the traditional rhetorical analysis (section 4.2.) as a
means of evaluating the interpersonal means of affecting the audience. Secondly, I
am analyzing and comparing two opinion programs introducing a level of
intertextuality to my research. The third aspect of Fairclough’s critique seems
directed toward van Dijk’s work and not toward his method.
4.2 Traditional Rhetorical Analysis
“Rhetoric may be defined as the faculty of observing in any given case
the available means of persuasion” (Aristotle ca. 350 BCE).
Critical discourse analysis gives me the tools for the textual analysis of arguments.
By using Aristotle’s “three means of effecting persuasion” (Aristotle ca. 350 BCE) as
20
a stepping stone, I intend to evaluate the psychological means of influencing the
audience. The traditional terms for these means are “ethos,” “pathos,” and “logos”
or credibility, emotion, and logic, respectively (Stoner and Perkins 2005: 148).
Credibility as a means of persuasion refers to the speaker’s credibility
in the eyes of the audience (Stoner and Perkins 2005: 148). Credibility may stem
from a personal relationship between the speaker and the audience, or it can stem
from past experiences, or it can be the result of the status of the speaker. A doctor
would be a good example of a person who in his profession successfully uses
credibility as a tool of persuasion. For someone like a politician it may be harder if
the audience happens to believe the commonplace saying, “politicians always lie”.
As a means of persuasion, emotion may be the most notorious but also
the most complex and the most intriguing. Stoner and Perkins (2005: 149) warn that
it would be simplistic to think that a speaker could manipulate the audience’s
emotions at will. Rather, the use of pathos is a skill, which can be a powerful tool,
but if used too much it can become ineffective or even absurd.
Logic as a means of persuasion points to the speaker’s ability to appeal
to the reasoning power of the audience (Stoner and Perkins 2005: 151). Aristotle
made a distinction between “induction” and “syllogism.” Induction is reasoning
based on previous experiences from similar cases (ibid: 153). Syllogism is an
argument in the form of general statement followed by a specific statement which
leads to a conclusion (ibid: 152). An example of a syllogism could be: “The Party
only cares about the rich. You are not rich. Thus, the Party does not care about you.”
If the conclusion is left for the audience to infer, it is called an “enthymeme.”
Enthymemes can be powerful tools, especially in the realm of political speeches or
media, because the speaker can imply hurtful things without making an explicit
attack on something or someone.
In this study I will use the Aristotelian distinction between the three
means of persuasion as a basis for evaluating the psychological appeal of messages.
However, it should be understood that there is a dynamic relationship between the
three means of persuasion and that they do not work distinctly from one another but
rather they complement each other (Stoner and Perkins 2005: 153). Thus, even if one
means of persuasion is highlighted in the analysis it should always be kept in mind
that the other two still matter.
21
One of the incentives for this study is to find out what kinds of
connotations are attached to these flag-wavers. By looking into the contexts of when
flag-wavers are used, it should be possible to make inferences about what kind of an
impact the use of the flag-waver is supposed to have on the audience. My hypothesis
is that the flag-wavers will be used in ways that are not in accordance with their
dictionary definitions, which were given in section 3.2. Moreover, it is expected that
when extended meanings are attached to the flag-wavers, they appeal to the audience
through what Stoner and Perkins (2005: 12) call “glandular reaction.” This means
that the audience reacts to a message emotionally rather than with a careful
consideration of the context. My hypothesis is supported by Nunberg's claim (2004:
163) that the function of the word patriotism is to put people on the defensive.
Keeping this in mind, it is my assumption that the flag-wavers are used more with
the intention of using the emotional appeal as the means of persuasion. However, my
approach differs from Nunberg's claim in that I assume that flag-weavers are more
versatile and that they can be used as a validation of a viewpoint or as an assertion of
a positive or negative status.
5
Data
In this section I will introduce the Corpus of Contemporary American English and
explain how the data was retrieved from it. I will also briefly introduce Bill O’Reilly
and Sean Hannity and their respective television shows, as well as grounded reasons
why their shows make good and relevant objects of study.
5.1 Corpus of Contemporary American English
My primary source of data is the Corpus of Contemporary American English
(COCA). It contains 425 million words from more than 175,000 texts between the
years 1990–2011. Basically, COCA offers a yearly sampling of about 20 million
words; consisting of 4 million words from five different genres (academic, fiction,
magazine, newspaper, and spoken language).
In the field of discourse analysis, corpora are employed relatively
seldom as a resource (Biber, Conrad, and Reppen [1998] 2000: 106, McEnery and
22
Wilson [1996] 2005: 114). McEnery and Wilson (ibid) speculate that the reason may
be that it is difficult to find a sufficient amount of material from a corpus for a given
project. However, for this type of study COCA is an excellent tool; not only because
of the sheer size of it but also because working with a ready-made corpus, instead of
searching for the instances myself, helps to ensure the objectivity of the study in the
sense that I cannot influence the selection of the data.
I chose the words “patriot” and “America” as the root words for the
study and performed open-ended searches in the COCA category “FOX,” which
displays words that have the text “patriot” or “America” as part of the word on Fox
News Channel’s programs. For the “patriot” search, the five most frequently used
words, and the only ones with multiple hits, were the ones that I picked for this
study. The search with the word “America” came up with words that had higher
frequencies than “anti-American” and “un-American,” such as
“African-
American/s,” “American/s,” and “America.” However, I decided that it would be
best to focus on words that, for one, specifically reflect attitudes toward America,
and two, have a more limited amount of definitions and thus their use should be more
predictable.
COCA web interface has a multitude of search options. Searches can be
limited to a specific year or a five year period or to a sub-category of a given genre.
To acquire the data for the study, I searched a sub-category of spoken language titled
“FOX,” which retrieves instances from the television programs of the Fox News
Channel. After that, I selected all the instances in which flag-wavers were used on
the following shows The O’Reilly Factor, Hannity & Colmes, Hannity’s America,
and Hannity. Then I adjusted the timeframe to get what I deemed to be a sufficient
amount of instances of flag-wavers. It should be noted that the number of times each
lexical item is produced by one source is not necessarily directly comparable to
another. However, in terms of this mainly qualitative study this is not a problem as I
am more focused on how the flag-wavers are used rather than the frequencies with
which they are used in.
Although naming things in a patriotic fashion is certainly an interesting
phenomenon, it is not within the scope of this study. Thus, I decided to exclude the
instances when the words patriot or patriots are used as a part of the following proper
nouns: the USA PATRIOT Act (or Patriot Act), the Patriot Missile, and the football
team New England Patriots. However, if, for example, the New England Patriots
23
were to be described as actually being patriotic then that flag-waver will naturally be
included.
I have to acknowledge that the corpus-based approach to this kind of
study has some limitations. For one, COCA only offers a limited number of words
around the searched word for copyright reasons. However, this is usually enough for
an informed researcher to identify the broader context, but at times I have had to
make an extra effort to look for a transcript from the Internet or if not readily
available make an extra search using COCA’s search engine. In COCA, one can
search for the first/last three words of a hit and thus artificially lengthen the transcript
one has from ones previous search. It is worth noting that television shows, of
course, have visual ways of affecting the audience. An American flag, a picture of
the Statue of Liberty or video footage from 9/11 can be used as a powerful means of
persuasion. However, it is the sole purpose of this study to consider the use of
language rather than the power of visual imagery, which would be an interesting
topic for another type of study.
The transcripts contain some, mainly minor, errors in spelling and
punctuation, which I have not corrected; rather the following examples have been
copy-pasted from the material. For the sake of clarity I have, on some occasions
added names inside square brackets to indicate who the participants are speaking
about. Also, for the sake of clarity, emphases have been added to the examples to
indicate the use of flag-wavers. Thus, emphases in text do not signify emphases in
the spoken format.
5.2 Bill O’Reilly
Bill O’Reilly is the host of The O’Reilly Factor, which airs every week day on Fox
News Channel at 8 p.m. and has been on air for more than ten consecutive years. The
show is a combination of news and hard-hitting journalism and is among the highest
rated cable news shows in the country (FOXNews.com: On Air Personalities). The
three Emmy awards O’Reilly has won prove his abilities as a newscaster (ibid). His
style is direct and he presents himself as a straight talker with no affiliations to either
party. Furthermore, the show’s website proclaims that the show is in the “No Spin
24
Zone,” meaning that he “cuts through the rhetoric as he interviews the players who
make the story newsworthy.” (FOXNews.com: On Air Personalities).
O’Reilly is also one of the more controversial figures in cable news and
indeed has had his fair share of criticism and even ridicule, especially from liberal
political commentators. For example Al Franken, a political comedian/commentator,
went after O’Reilly in his book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and
Balanced Look at the Right (2004). Franken, who is now a Senator for Minnesota,
had O’Reilly’s face on the cover of the book and a chapter titled “Bill O’Reilly:
Lying Splotchy Bully” (2004: 69–86), in which he accuses O’Reilly of telling lies
and making misstatements on his show or on shows he has been on as a guest.
Stephen Colbert, of “The Colbert Report,” which definitely has a liberal bias, says he
is emulating O’Reilly in his award-winning, satiric and over-the-top but politically
savvy comedy news show on Comedy Central (FOXNews.com: Stephen Colbert
Enters the No Spin Zone).
A methodological 2007 study at the University of Indiana analyzed
O’Reilly’s rhetoric on the “Talking Points” segment of The O’Reilly Factor and
found that “the most evil villains in O’Reilly’s world are illegal aliens, terrorists, and
foreigners because they are apparently a physical and moral threat to the United
States. Slightly less evil – but unambiguously bad – are groups (media,
organizations, politicians) who share a political leaning to the left” (Conway, Grabe
and Grieves 2007: 197). Another study reveals that among people who identify
themselves as “republican conservatives” The O’Reilly Factor is rated as the sixth
most popular news show and only surpassed by five other Fox News Channel’s
shows (Fetto 2011). So, even though Bill O’Reilly maintains his party affiliation as
independent, it seems like a fair conclusion that he is sympathetic to the conservative
cause.
The data I looked at from COCA has been collected from The O’Reilly
Factor during a five-year period from the start of 2006 to the end of 2010. The
COCA website provides a downloadable list of all the texts used in its compilation.
According to the information in that list, during the five-year period 330,483 words
have been added to COCA from The O’Reilly Factor. In that timeframe COCA gives
91 instances of when a flag-waver has been used, excluding, as mentioned in the
previous section (5.1.), the instances when the words “patriot” or “patriots” refer to
the PATRIOT Act, Patriot missiles, or the New England Patriots football team.
25
5.3 Sean Hannity
Sean Hannity is the host of Hannity on the Fox News Channel and “The Sean
Hannity Show” on nationally syndicated radio. He is widely regarded as one of the
most prominent conservative voices in America (Fox News: On Air Personalities,
The Telegraph: Harnden 2010-01-14). Unlike Bill O’Reilly, Hannity is an
unapologetic conservative in the sense that he does not claim to be anything other
than a conservative (O’Reilly 2010: 63). Hannity calls himself a “Reagan
conservative” (Stelter 2011-10-09) and with book titles like Let Freedom Ring:
Winning the War over Liberalism (2002) and Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating
Terrorism, Despotism and Liberalism (2004) there can be little doubt about where he
falls on the political spectrum.
Hannity has had the same 9 p.m. slot on Fox News for over 15 years,
although the show has had changes during this time. Originally the show was called
Hannity & Colmes featuring mild-mannered Alan Colmes as the balancing liberal
voice to counter Hannity (NY Times: Stanley 2007-01-30, NY Times: Stelter 2011-1009). Although Colmes represented the liberal viewpoints on the show, he was
frequently criticized by some liberals for not being strong enough in comparison to
the assertive and charismatic Hannity (Franken 2004: 91–95, NY Times: Stanley
2007-01-30). Colmes left the show, after 12 successful years, at end of 2008 and was
not replaced. The show continued as just Hannity. There are still one or more liberal
guests on the show each day but they are outnumbered by conservatives (NY Times:
Stelter 2011-10-09).
The data I have collected from COCA are mainly from the shows
Hannity & Colmes and Hannity from 2002 to 2011. Data has also been collected
from the show Hannity’s America, which was Hannity’s Sunday night talk show for
two years (2007–2009) and a precursor for Hannity to go solo on weekdays. Between
2002 and 2011 from the transcripts of the three shows, 928,141 words have been
added to COCA. The timespan from which the data has been collected is
considerably longer in this section than that of The O’Reilly Factor. The main reason
for this was to get enough instances of flag-wavers. The timespan also begins from
the year when the ratings of Hannity & Colmes surpassed those of the iconic Larry
26
King Live, which had been the most watched 9 p.m. cable news show for the
previous 16 years (NY Times: Rutenberg 2002-10-29).
It should be noted that in the analysis section I will not make any
distinctions between the shows Hannity and Hannity’s America as the show format is
mostly the same. Furthermore, the three shows will mostly be analyzed as one entity
marked with the designation Hannity (& Colmes). If there is a need to discuss the
shows separately, I will not use the parentheses.
6
Analysis
In this chapter I will analyze the data, gathered from COCA, by using the tools
presented in the methodology chapter. The approaches to the analyses have some
differences due to the contrasts in show formats and narrative styles. However, both
shows have been analyzed with a consistently rigorous vigor. Both subchapters start
with some general remarks on the findings and move from positive uses of the flagwavers to the more negative uses and then on to summaries about the use of flagwavers in broader contexts.
6.1 The O’Reilly Factor
In the data collected from COCA, flag-wavers were used on The O’Reilly Factor in
91 instances. “Patriot” and “patriots” were the most often used flag-wavers on the
show with 18 and 45 hits respectively. Of the flag-wavers with clearly negative
connotations “anti-American” was clearly the most used with 15 hits.
As exhibited in Table 2, in the COCA data almost all the instances of
the flag-wavers on The O’Reilly Factor (~95 percent) were spoken by Bill O’Reilly
himself. In the data, only four other people on the show in five different instances
used flag-wavers. The others are Juan Williams, who is a Fox News Contributor
(FOXNews.com: On Air Personalities), Wendy Murphy, a legal analyst for several
networks (Huffington Post), and an unnamed announcer of a movie trailer.
27
Table 2: Distribution of Flag-Wavers on The O'Reilly Factor
Flag-waver
Patriot
Patriots
Patriotism
Patriotic
Unpatriotic
Anti-American
Un-American
Overall
Overall
18
45
1
8
0
15
4
91
O'Reilly
18
45
0
7
0
15
1
86
Others
0
0
1
1
0
0
3
5
Even a superficial glance at the data reveals that many of the instances of flagwavers occur in the segment of the show called “Pinheads & Patriots.” Thus it makes
sense to start the analysis by looking at the dynamics of that juxtaposition. After that
I will look at how flag-wavers are used to create positive and negative
representations and then what are the broader contexts in which flag-wavers are used.
6.1.1
Pinheads and Patriots
As stated before many instances of flag-waver use relate to “pinheads and patriots.”
The phrase is an idiosyncrasy of Bill O’Reilly’s and is not really used by others than
unless they are discussing O’Reilly. On The O’Reilly Factor there is a segment
called “Pinheads & Patriots”, in which O’Reilly, in his folksy style, talks about an
individual or a group and what they have done to catch his attention or why they
have been in the news. Then he labels the person either a pinhead or a patriot. Also,
in 2010 O’Reilly published a book called Pinheads and Patriots: Where You Stand in
the Age of Obama, which he promotes on the show on a few occasions. In the book,
Pinheads and Patriots, O’Reilly (2010: 2) says that the topics of the segment in the
program vary from the ridiculous to the gravely serious, but also that they are always
about people whose actions have an influence on other people’s lives.
The juxtaposition between “pinhead” and “patriot” is an interesting
one. Alliteration is likely to be part of the explanation for the selected juxtaposition.
Nonetheless, pinhead and patriot make somewhat of an odd couple considering that
pinhead, according to the dictionary, is used in informal contexts as ‘an insulting
word for someone who is not very intelligent’ (McMillan English Dictionary ([2002]
2004) and patriot, on the other hand as noted before is ‘someone who has strong
28
feelings of love, respect, and duty towards their country’ (Ibid). Thus the two words
are by no means antonymous, meaning that they do not have opposite, mutually
exclusive meanings; surely there are stupid people who love their country as well as
very intelligent people who are not particularly patriotic. But then again O’Reilly’s
use of the word patriot is not always in accordance with the dictionary meaning of
the word. Consider the following examples from the “Pinheads & Patriots” segment:
(1) BILL O’REILLY: “Nineteen-year-old Monica Brown from Lake Jackson, Texas,
has received the Silver Star for gallantry in Afghanistan. The Army specialist
is only the second woman since World War II to earn that honor. She
braved heavy fire to rescue five woman – five wounded comrades, I should
say. For this, Specialist Brown is obviously a patriot.” (COCA: The O’Reilly
Factor 2008)
(2) BILL O’REILLY: “Director Steven Spielberg has quit advising the Chinese
government about the upcoming Olympics over Darfur. The Hollywood
mogul says Chinese still does business with the evil Sudanese government
and doesn't pressure those villains to stop the genocide in Darfur. What
Spielberg says is true. So he is a patriot.” (COCA: The O’Reilly Factor 2008)
(3) BILL O’REILLY: “Last time we asked you whether the late John Lennon would
have 70 years old last Saturday was a pinhead or a patriot. Unfortunately
for you Lennon fans 84 percent say he was a pinhead, only 16 percent think
he was a patriot. I think it's something to do with either drugs or Yoko.
Possibly both.” (COCA: “The O’Reilly Factor” 2010)
(4) BILL O’REILLY: “Actor Paul Newman has cancer, according to close friends,
and our prayers are with him and his family. It's also reported that over the
past few years, Mr. Newman has donated an astounding $120 million to his
charitable foundation. We have admired Newman for years. No doubt he's
a patriot.” (COCA: The O’Reilly Factor 2008)
In the first example, O’Reilly uses the word “patriot” to describe a war hero, so his
use of the word is certainly understandable and fits the context. Although, I think that
the Silver Star is more of a validation for a soldier than anything that O’Reilly says.
Furthermore, I would argue that enlisting in the army during wartime is patriotic
enough as it is, but I will come back to what implications this might have later.
Examples (2), (3), and (4) reveal the inconsistency in O’Reilly’s use of
the word patriot. In example (2) he says that Steven Spielberg is a patriot because he
29
has stopped advising the Chinese government in protest over their support of the
Sudanese government. But if one considers Spielberg’s actions in this context, it is
probably not love for the United States that guides his actions. In example (3) the
viewers have had the opportunity to vote whether John Lennon was a pinhead or
patriot, which seems somewhat illogical considering that Lennon was not an
American citizen. So, if he had been a patriot, he would perhaps have exhibited his
patriotism toward the United Kingdom. In example (4) O’Reilly expresses his
admiration for actor Paul Newman, acknowledges his efforts for charities, and
sympathizes with his struggle against cancer before concluding by saying that he is a
patriot. Although Newman certainly seems like a sympathetic person, O’Reilly’s
description does not explain what makes him a patriot per se. Thus here are four
instances with very different justifications for O’Reilly or his audience to make the
judgment between a pinhead and a patriot. Considering these examples, it seems that
for O’Reilly labeling someone a patriot is just his way of saying that they have done
something good or that he likes them and wishes them well.
In example (1) it seemed that O’Reilly used the word “patriot” in
accordance with its dictionary definition, but in the other three examples he seemed
to have some extended meaning for the word. This suspicion is actually verified by
O’Reilly (2010: 2) as he describes that in the segment he calls out people who do
good things and people who do bad things. Then it can be deduced that instead of
using the word patriot in the denotative sense of the word in example (1), he used it
in a broader sense, which just happened to fit to parameters of a dictionary definition.
Moreover, this is proof that the use of the word “patriot” is definitely a deliberate
rhetorical tool and that flag-wavers may take on broader meanings.
There are two effects worth taking note of; this format of juxtaposition
is an obvious chance for positive self-presentation and negative other-presentation;
the other, more subtle and thus maybe the more important notion, is that when
O’Reilly asserts his opinion, even over people serving in the military, he promotes
himself to the status of a judge, who determines what is patriotic and thus by the
word’s extended meaning what is good. When this is taken into account in the
context of his politically oriented television show with a conservative tilt, it could in
the long run have the effect of affirming the patriotic image of the conservative
movement. Moreover, this clearly supports Nunberg’s view that conservatives treat
30
patriotism as a gated community, as O’Reilly judges who is a patriot and who is a
pinhead.
As to what rhetoric appeal is in play here is not completely
straightforward. The linguistic structure would, to some extent, indicate that O’Reilly
is appealing to the logic of the audience as he claims that “For this, she is a patriot”
and “So, he’s a patriot.” These could indicate that there is a deductive process and
the claim is logical. However, as I argued before, O’Reilly is in a way promoting
himself to the position of a judge, and because he makes these judgments on such
general terms, I would argue that his credibility is as important a factor as logic.
6.1.2
Positive Uses of Flag-wavers
In this section I will look at how flag-wavers are used to create positive ingroup
representations without demeaning other groups. Table 3 exhibits how many times
flag-wavers with positive connotations were used. The first column shows the
number of times they were used altogether. The second column (P & P) shows the
number of times they were used during the segment “Pinheads & Patriots.” The
column labeled “Metatext” indicates how many times flag-wavers were used to
explain what was going to happen next on the show, including phrases like
“Pinheads and Patriots on deck”, “Up next: Pinheads and Patriots”, and “Pinheads
and Patriots is next.” The column labeled “Book” iterates the times flag-wavers
referred to O’Reilly’s book Pinheads and Patriots and the last column shows how
many times positive flag-wavers were used in contexts that did not relate to pinheads
and patriots in any way.
Table 3: Overall Usage of Positive Flag-wavers compared to "Pinheads & Patriots"
Flag-waver
Patriot
Patriots
Patriotism
Patriotic
Overall
Overall
Use
18
45
1
8
72
P&P
9
2
0
4
15
Metatext
1
30
0
0
31
Book
0
10
0
0
10
Other
8
3
1
4
16
31
As seen in Table 3, there are 41 instances of flag-wavers come from the columns
“Metatext” and “Book” which have little relevance in terms of analysis. Their
significance is in repetition, which may add to O’Reilly’s credibility or authority as a
judge when it comes to patriotism. However, the remaining 31 instances of flagwavers were enough to be indicative of some consistencies. One of which is that Bill
O’Reilly fairly often uses flag-wavers when he talks about charities or of charitable
people as already seen in example (4) and now in examples (5) and (6).
(5) O’REILLY: “Barbra Streisand, Paul Newman, and Mel Gibson. These folks give
the most to charity, and they are patriots.” (COCA: The O’Reilly Factor
2008)
(6) O’REILLY: “Last night here in New York City, the Wounded Warrior project
held its annual fundraiser. About 700 patriots showed up to support this
very worthy organization.” (COCA: The O’Reilly Factor 2010)
It is interesting how often charity is portrayed as a positive from the point of view of
patriotism. Furthermore, it is interesting that some of those who earn the label patriot
are Democrats or liberals. HollywoodRepublican.net lists political affiliations of
Hollywood figures; Barbra Streisand, Paul Newman and Steven Spielberg,
mentioned in examples (2), (4) and (6), are listed as Democrats. This can still be
construed to support the theory of positive ingroup representation if one considers it
against the ideological background. In general the conservative movement is against
high taxes but many adhere to the Christian notion of charity. What they object to is
the government being the one who does the charitable work. Thus highlighting
charity as being patriotic could be thought of as a means of enforcing that
conservative viewpoint.
Another consistently positive use for flag-wavers by O’Reilly is to call
American soldiers patriots as seen in example (1). Besides example (1), on other
occasions American soldiers are labeled patriots on face-value as demonstrated by
example (7).
(7) O’REILLY: “OK, but if you take that position, sir, you're putting two patriots,
we believe they are, Green Berets, and you're taking their lives. And you're
basically -- they and their families are suffering tremendously, even if
acquitted.” (COCA: The O’Reilly Factor 2007)
32
What makes example (7) particularly interesting is that the Green Berets in question
were charged with the illegal killing of a suspected terrorist (NY Times: von
Zielbauer 2007-09-17). Still, O’Reilly backs the soldiers by labeling them as patriots,
which they probably are in the denotative meaning of the word. However, because
O’Reilly regularly uses the word patriot in a broader sense to mean good, it could be
argued that O’Reilly approves of the alleged misconduct of the two men. Although I
do not consider this a very plausible explanation, it demonstrates a certain
complication in using words arbitrarily. The real significance in pointing to the
patriotism of American soldiers, in my opinion, is that it reflects an image of the
speaker as a patriot as he offers his support for the troops.
There are some instances in which O’Reilly’s use of a flag-waver is
simply peculiar. One such instance was a vote on whether a silly dance to the 90s hit
“Ice Ice Baby”, in anticipation of a visit by the singer Vanilla Ice, by two hosts of
“Fox & Friends” was patriotic or pinheaded. O’Reilly voted patriotic and so did 75
percent of the voters. It is difficult to imagine how a dance can be patriotic, not to
mention that particular dance. Nonetheless, the viewers of The O’Reilly Factor chose
to vote patriotic, which, I think it is reasonable to assume, means it is more likely that
the voters like the hosts than that the voters thought the dance was patriotic per se.
6.1.3
Negative Uses of Flag-wavers
Next I will move on from the positive uses of flag-wavers to look at how flag-wavers
were used to create negative images on “The O’Reilly Factor.” Of the negative flagwavers, I could not find any instances of the word “unpatriotic”, only four instances
of “un-American” but a staggering 15 instances of “anti-American.” However, it
should also be noted that, as the John Lennon -case demonstrated (example (3)),
there are also a few cases of the words “patriot” and “patriotic” being used to create
negative images, and those are taken into account here. Furthermore, sometimes
words “un-American” or “anti-American” were used to deny an allegation of
someone being un-American or anti-American.
O’Reilly seems not to be a fan of liberal Hollywood judging by the way
he attaches the word “anti-American” to Hollywood figures and movies like in
examples (8)–(10). Rosie O'Donnell, Sean Penn, and George Clooney, producer of
33
Syriana, are all well-known for their liberal bias. Here the negative otherpresentation is very clear. Perceived negative actions of the members of the outgroup
are portrayed very directly and with some hyperbole.
(8) O’REILLY: “But even worse is the shameful Rosie O'Donnell, a first rate
hater, whose anti-American diatribes put her and her employer, the Disney
Company, in a disgraceful position.” (COCA: “The O’Reilly Factor” 2007)
(9) O’REILLY: “Let's go to a very emotional guy, Sean Penn, who likes to hang
around with anti-American tyrants for some reason.” (COCA: The O’Reilly
Factor 2007)
(10) O’REILLY: “Most people don't know that " Syriana, " which is very antiAmerican -- anti-American imperialism movie, that glorifies suicide
bombing.” (COCA: “The O’Reilly Factor” 2006)
Bill O’Reilly is often critical of other news sources – it is a part of his show’s format
– but it is interesting how often he uses the word “anti-American” in his critique of
other media. Nevertheless, he does not seem to make any claims that, for example,
the New York Times would be anti-American as such but that they feed antiAmerican sentiments abroad, as demonstrated by examples (11)–(13).
(11) O’REILLY: “Now, there is no question that by hyping the Abu Ghraib story, "
The Times " fed into anti-American feeling all over the world and created
even more hatred for this country.” (COCA: The O’Reilly Factor 2009)
(12) O’REILLY: “By blaming me for Tiller's murder, the far left can avoid the
human rights issue and frighten other public people who believe that
destroying human life can not be a casual thing. Radical zealots want to
intimidate, but they never explain their calluses to human life. Think about
it, a newspaper whips up worldwide anti-American hatred and then calls
me a hater for reporting accurately on Tiller when few others will?
Amazing.” (COCA: The O’Reilly Factor 2009)
(13) O’REILLY: “Now, my column this week is on the " Bourne Ultimatum ", which
is a huge hit. But it's so -- you know, the anti-American theme is so
pronounced. The evil CIA guys, you know?” (COCA: The O’Reilly Factor
2007)
34
Example (12) is particularly interesting but requires some background information.
George Tiller, a doctor whom O’Reilly repeatedly called a “late-term abortion
provider” and a “baby killer,” was shot on May 31st 2009 (Politifact.com: “Bill
O’Reilly Called George Tiller a Baby Killer without Attribution”). Some liberals
then became critical of O’Reilly and suggested that the publicity contributed to the
murder of Tiller (ibid). However, according to PolitiFact (ibid), which is an unbiased
(although that is disputed by some) fact checking website, there were no suggestions
that the murderer had been directly influenced by O’Reilly, which seems to be the
accusation that he is responding to. So, for example (12), a good starting point for
analysis is the headlining assertion that O’Reilly has been accused of being complicit
in the murder, while attributing the accusation to “the far left” has a marginalizing
effect. There is also juxtaposition between the far left who want to draw attention
away from the abortion debate and other public people who believe that destroying a
life is not a “casual thing.” There is then an implicit accusation that the outlook of the
far left on abortion or on human life is casual. I am not sure if “radical zealots” is
supposed to refer to the murderer or the far left, but I am inclined to believe that it is
aimed at the latter because he goes on, again in hyperbolical fashion, to accuse a
newspaper for inciting “worldwide anti-American hatred.” PolitiFact notes that
O’Reilly had defended himself earlier in a newspaper column by saying that he
merely reported on how others were describing Tiller but according to PolitiFact that
was not an accurate description. However, O’Reilly seems to reiterate reporting as
his defense when he in the end says that he was merely “accurately reporting on
Tiller.” Here, on the one hand, positive self-representation is very clear as O’Reilly is
attributing positive action to himself while his alleged negative actions were deemphasized and denied. On the other hand the negative other-presentation was
established through headlining the negative actions but also through marginalization.
There is also some media-critique with the use of the word “patriotic.” In
example (14) O’Reilly clearly challenges the patriotism of the American media. In
example (15) Juan Williams, a FOX News contributor in a discussion with O’Reilly,
takes a jab at the New York Times by questioning their motives for the bad press they
had given to the Bush administration.
35
(14) O’REILLY: “I'll tell you what. If the American media were patriotic and
responsible and they were saying, yes, we make mistakes but everybody
country does. But we're a noble nation. That would help this country.”
(COCA: The O’Reilly Factor 2007)
(15) JUAN WILLIAMS: “Well, I think first of all, let me just say that you were very
right about " The Times. " I think that what's going on with them is exactly
as you described it, which they were very wrong in terms of weapons of
mass destruction. Felt they had been supportive, patriotic in the aftermath
of 9/11. And then, I think, were exposed because a lot of their sources, a
lot of their reporting was just so bad. And then they went after the Bush
administration with a vengeance.” (COCA: The O’Reilly Factor 2009)
Examples (11)–(15) reveal a subtle but an important pattern. When the pundits in The
O’Reilly Factor are being critical of media they do not describe them as unpatriotic
or anti-American as such. The pattern on The O’Reilly Factor seems to be that the
conservatives say that the outgroup feeds the anti-American sentiment (examples
(11)–(13)), or they might question the outgroup’s patriotism (example (14)), or admit
that they have shown some patriotism in the past (example (15)). However, there is
not a single instance where the outgroup would be explicitly called unpatriotic. I
suspect that the reason for avoiding labeling anyone anti-American or unpatriotic is
that it might reflect negatively on whomever makes the accusation, because that
would be too reminiscent of the 1950s era of McCarthyism. However, if the attack is
implicit enough, the label might stick without the unfortunate backlash of, worst case
scenario, getting sued for slander.
6.1.4
Broader Contexts
In this section I will briefly summarize the broader contexts in which the flag-wavers
were used on “The O’Reilly Factor.” Based on my observations, I have categorized
the contexts in four main categories; “Troops,” “Charity,” “Media,” and “Irrelevant,”
which do not, however, cover all the uses of the flag-wavers.
36
Table 4: Use of Flag-wavers on The O'Reilly Factor by Context
Flag-waver
Patriot
Patriots
Patriotism
Patriotic
Unpatriotic
Anti-American
Un-American
Overall
Overall
18
45
1
8
0
15
4
91
Irrelevant
1
40
0
0
0
0
0
41
Troops
6
3
0
1
0
0
0
10
Media
5
0
0
6
0
10
0
21
Charity
3
3
0
1
0
0
0
7
Table 4 displays the overall occurrences of flag-wavers and how often they were
used in each context. Under “Overall” are the total number of instances of the words
uttered in the data. It should be noted that there are overlaps between the categories
as some patriots may be patriots because they donate to a cause which supports the
troops as in example (16). Here O’Reilly pleads for donations for “Wounded
Warriors Project,” which helps severely injured American soldiers.
(16) O’REILLY: “Patriotic Americans need to think about the tremendous
heartbreak of combat veterans whose bodies are shattered forever.”
(COCA: The O’Reilly Factor 2010)
The category “Irrelevant” is labeled thusly because it does not offer much in terms of
analysis. The category consists of instances which I deemed as metatext earlier and
the instances in which the word “patriots” is used as part of the title of O’Reilly’s
book. The significance of this group is in its repetition; which, with its abundance,
might in the long run amplify O’Reilly’s status as an authority on patriotism.
The “Troops” category consists mainly of O’Reilly praising the
patriotism of the American soldiers or of people who have contributed to “Wounded
Warriors.” Five out of the ten instances in this category are about either thanking
people for their charitable actions toward the American soldiers or encouraging
people to exhibit charity. On four occasions O’Reilly labels particular soldiers as
patriots.
The category “Media” consists of instances where O’Reilly was
crediting or criticizing the patriotism of a news organization (NY Times, BBC), the
media in general or media personalities. In order to lessen the overlap between
37
categories, I decided to exclude from this category those instances in which it is clear
that a media personality is patriotic because of their charity work. Only the liberal
media and liberal media personalities were represented with negative uses of flagwavers. In terms of positive representations flag-wavers were used less divisively, as
some liberals were described as patriots as well.
“Charity” is an interesting category, because its existence proves that
sometimes these flag-wavers are used in contexts that do not fit their dictionary
definitions. The category consists mostly of those instances in the “Pinheads &
Patriots” segment in which O’Reilly credits charitable people. However, there are a
few occasions in other segments of the show where O’Reilly either thanks people
who have donated or encourages people to be charitable by using flag-wavers to
appeal to the audience’s conscience.
There are two other uses for flag-wavers worth mentioning, but not
enough instances to merit categories of their own. First, on two occasions O’Reilly
used the word “patriot” as a defining characteristic of a political figure. Second, on
five occasions O’Reilly uses flag-wavers in discussions about policy. Of those five
instances four are negative representations of liberals and the remaining one is in
support of President Bush. So, although five instances may be an inadequate
sampling to form definite conclusion, there is a strong indication that O’Reilly uses
flag-wavers to dismiss liberal political viewpoints.
6.2
Hannity (& Colmes)
In the data collected from COCA on Hannity (& Colmes) there were altogether 67
instances of flag-wavers. Of all the flag-wavers the least used one was the word
“patriot”, which was, in contrast, the second most used term on “The O’Reilly
Factor.” The most used flag-wavers on Hannity (& Colmes) were “anti-American”
(18 hits) and “patriotism” (15 hits); the remaining flag-wavers (“patriots,”
“patriotic,” “unpatriotic,” and “un-American”) had seven or eight hits.
The transcribed parts from the shows Hannity & Colmes, Hannity’s
America, and Hannity are different from The O’Reilly Factor. There are more
interviews and debates on Hannity (& Colmes). Because of this there are more
instances of people other than just Hannity or Colmes using flag-wavers, whereas in
38
the O’Reilly data virtually all of the instances (~95 percent) were spoken by
O’Reilly. Compared to O’Reilly (86 instances of flag-wavers in five years), Hannity
uses flag-wavers rather sparingly; 22 times over a ten year period. However, with
Hannity’s 14 instances of flag-wavers during the years of Hannity & Colmes, he
eases past Colmes who uses flag-wavers only on three occasions. The contrast in the
use of flag-wavers between Hannity and Colmes led me to research the ideological
affiliation of those guests who used flag-wavers. Table 5 exhibits the figures of how
the uses of flag-wavers are divided between the hosts of the show and then between
other conservatives and other liberals.
Table 5: Distribution of Flag-wavers on Hannity (& Colmes)
Flag-waver
Patriot
Patriots
Patriotism
Patriotic
Unpatriotic
Anti-American
Un-American
Overall
Overall
4
7
15
8
7
18
8
67
Hannity:
Overall
1
1
6
3
0
7
4
22
Hannity:
”H&C”
0
1
5
2
0
6
0
14
Colmes:
”H&C”
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
3
Other
Conservatives:
Overall
3
5
5
4
3
9
4
33
Other
Liberals:
Overall
0
1
1
0
3
2
0
7
Of the 67 overall instances, I determined that 55 instances were spoken by people
leaning toward conservatism, ten by people with more liberal mindsets, and two were
left undecided. The first of the undecided ones was left so on the grounds that the
context of Chilean mining accident of 2009 seems to some extent irrelevant to the
research topic at hand. The second one was left undecided because, according to my
research, the speaker was in the public eye for only a short period of time, only to
debate the one issue thus making it difficult to determine whether she was a
conservative or a liberal, albeit she was on the show debating with Colmes, which
could be an indication of her political stance.
The conservative leaning voices heard on the shows varied from
political bloggers and authors, like Ann Coulter, to Fox News contributors, like the
former George W. Bush strategist Karl Rove, and further to other political
heavyweights, like Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich. Besides Colmes,
39
the liberals who used flag-wavers were grassroots political organizer (Jane Flemming
Kleeb), liberal radio talk show host (Leslie Marshall), Fox News contributors (Bob
Beckel, Pat Caddell, and Kirsten Powers), and political lightweights (Hope Marston,
Eugene city councilwoman and Michael Meyers, NYC civil rights coalition). It is
important to take note of the obvious disparity in how much influence these guests
have as the voices of conservatism or liberalism.
Although I think it is vital to be aware that there are some liberal voices
on the show, I deem it more prudent, considering my research questions, to focus my
analysis on the conservative’s use of flag-wavers and that will be the primary focus
of this subchapter. I will start by first taking a look at how the flag-wavers are used
to create positive ingroup representations (section 6.2.1.); then move on to look at
how they are used to create negative outgroup representations (sections 6.2.2. and
6.2.3.); and finally in what kind of contexts (section 6.2.4.) they occur.
6.2.1
Positive Uses of Flag-wavers
I found ten instances of flag-wavers being used in a manner that is positive and not
derisive in any way. Those can be put into five categories. Firstly, Hannity
introducing a guest to the audience:
(17) SEAN HANNITY: "He's a man who truly understands the meaning
of patriotism, of giving back to your country. Now, I sat down with Former
Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich who explains the importance of
America and what it means to truly be an American.” (COCA: Hannity’s
America 2008 )
Secondly, someone addressing or talking about the Tea-party protesters:
(18) MITT ROMNEY: “…fortunately there are some good blue dog Democrats out
there that have conservative principles. They're listening to the town
meeting members and the tea party members who are patriots.” (COCA:
Hannity & Colmes 2007)
Thirdly, commentary on a candidate in the Republican primaries:
40
(19) HANNITY: “…is this a calculated attempt, Dinesh, on the part of Mitt
Romney. He's got to support the nominee. It's going to be McCain. And
then h sets himself as the conservative alternative going forward and seeks
the nomination four years from now.”
DINESH D’SOUZA: “It's possible that there is an opportunistic motive. But I
also think that Romney, basically being a patriot here. He realizes that
McCain has actually come back almost politically from the dead I mean,
several months ago, the McCain candidates had been written off. And
why? Because McCain had supported the Bush surge. That was an act of
political bravery on McCain's part. And it helped him now. So he surged to
the front himself. So I think it's a good move by Romney and conservatives
should recognize that and line up behind McCain.” (COCA: Hannity &
Colmes 2008 )
Fourthly, talk about historical figures and change in the country:
(20) HANNITY: “Peter, listen, this man (Ronald Reagan) was amazing. He brought
back a feeling of patriotism that we had not felt in a long time. He built up
our nation's defenses. He led the effort to bring down that wall and end
the Cold War.” (COCA: Hannity & Colmes 2002)
Fifthly, a politician rejecting the idea that people who disagree with him are
unpatriotic:
(21) GEORGE W. BUSH: “I think it's fair to say that, as I say in my speeches, they
are not unpatriotic. They're just wrong. They have a different view of the
world that then makes -- that -- and, therefore, their policies would
weaken us.” (COCA: Hannity & Colmes 2006)
(22) BOB BECKEL: “Governor, you're very good at parsing words. I know
understand why you're doing as well as you're doing. I don't think that you
can play that back and read it any other way than you're suggesting those
of us who oppose the war are somehow less of Americans. But let me ask
you this question.”
ROMNEY: “Bob, I am not going to let you say that. Bob, that's not true. Of
course people who oppose the war are great Americans and patriots. I
don't say that at all. What I'm saying is Barack Obama's comments were
unproductive. And his comments today, that Sean just read, are comments
which are counterproductive, do not help our effort, do not support our
men and women in the armed forces.” (COCA: Hannity & Colmes 2007)
41
Although the examples (17)–(22) are biased toward conservative views, my main
point here is that in these examples the flag-wavers are used in ways that are mainly
positive, inclusive and do not directly denigrate liberals or liberal points of view;
even if their next sentence might do that. In van Dijk’s terms these examples
construct a positive ingroup representation rather than negative outgroup
representation. This is especially the case in examples (17), (18), and (20).
Example (17) is interesting because by saying that Newt Gingrich
“truly understands the meaning of patriotism, of giving back to your country,”
Hannity seems to define patriotism as service to the country. But there is also a sense
of mystification of patriotism, as Hannity talks about understanding “the true
meaning of patriotism” and of what it means to “truly be an American.” Thus there is
a sense that not everyone shares the same concept of patriotism.
The most peculiar of these examples, in my opinion, is example (19) in
which Dinesh D’Souza analyzes Mitt Romney’s move to drop out of the Republican
primaries in 2008 to support Senator John McCain’s nomination as the Republican
candidate. D’Souza acknowledges that Romney’s move to support McCain could be
self-serving but at the same time D’Souza declares that Romney is a patriot for
supporting the likely Republican candidate. Thus, it seems that for D’Souza in this
context patriotism is what benefits the Republican Party.
The other instances of flag-wavers that are of particular interest are
examples (21) and (22). In these examples Romney and Bush explicitly refute any
suggestions that they would have belittled the patriotism of people who disagree with
them. Here, it is important to realize that Bush as the president and Romney as
someone looking for the Republican nomination for the presidency are in positions
which require them to be careful with their choice of words. Thus, it can be expected
that they have a tendency to not exclude the outgroup or in a sense keep open the
option to join the ingroup by not alienating anyone. In van Dijk’s terms this is an
example of impression management. These examples ((21) and (22)) are also part of
the legacy of McCarthyism, as politicians explicitly deny allegations of having
belittled someone’s patriotism to avoid the risk of any parallels being drawn.
In terms of traditional rhetorical appeal there is a case to be made that
in all of the above examples (17)–(22) the flag-wavers appeal to the positive
emotions of the audience. This is especially the case in examples (17)–(20) where a
42
person or a group is somehow introduced or otherwise described to the audience.
Calling them patriots can be seen as a shortcut to relate a positive image to the
audience. This could be the reason for the seemingly odd choice of words in example
(19).
6.2.2
Victimization
An interesting context for the use of flag-wavers is what I call “victimization.” By
victimization I mean instances where conservatives in some way accuse liberals or
democrats of undermining their patriotism or the Tea Party movement’s patriotism.
There is a case to be made that victimization should be a sub-category in “Attacking
Liberals.” However, I wanted to keep them distinct because the flag-wavers that are
used here deal mostly with the patriotism of conservatives, whereas the section
“Attacking Liberals” relates more directly with the patriotism of liberals. I want to
emphasize that by calling this kind of use of flag-wavers “victimization,” I do not
intend to imply that there could not be a legitimate grievance behind it but simply to
point out that in these instances the speaker makes a victim of someone.
(23) HANNITY: “I am telling you as an objective individual -- I'm being as objective
as I can be here -- that when Arianna Huffington or people in your
movement attack those of us that drive SUV's and question our patriotism
that this is an outright outrage for people to do that.” (COCA: Hannity &
Colmes 2003)
(24) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: “The politicians have been this elitist mentality. They
don't want to listen to us anymore. So we're going to try to make them
listen to us and if this is the only way to do it.”
HANNITY: “Can I have on last -- is it really -- is it just that they're passionate?
I mean we see, for example, stay-at-home moms, we see the elderly. We
see veterans. We see fathers pushing children in wheelchairs. And the
politicians referred to them as mobs, as un-American, as political terrorists,
as mobsters. Do you think the Democrats have overreached in these
attacks”?
UNIDENTIFIED-MALE: “Absolutely.” (COCA: Hannity 2009)
43
(25) NOELLE NIKPOUR: “You know what's funny is when the liberals get together
and demonstrate. They're exercising their freedom of speech. But when
the conservatives, they get together and demonstrate and organize, we're
called right-wing loons and un-American and unpatriotic.” (COCA: Hannity
2009)
(26) HANNITY: “Pat Caddell, what is it with the Democratic Party? They called
anybody who goes to the tea party, un-American, mobsters and every
other name -- they compared to the Klan and segregationists. Why would
the Democratic Party do that”? (COCA: Hannity 2010)
(27) S.E. CUPP: “It's really arrogant. I mean not only are they ignoring the will of
the people, they're ignoring public opinion. They're going to ram this bill
through no matter what. Now they're actually insulting them. They're
going after them. They're calling them un-American. Unpatriotic.
Manufactured. Unrepresentative. Crazy. I mean.”
HANNITY: “Political terrorists. Mobsters.” (COCA: Hannity 2010)
Flag-wavers are used in this kind of context of victimization in twelve instances. The
two elements that I find present in these examples are firstly, paraphrasing, or to use
van Dijk’s term summarizing what the outgroup has said about the ingroup to make
them seem unlikeable. The second element is the outrage over what has been said of
the ingroup, as explicitly spelled out in example (23). In examples (24)–(27) there is
also an element of accumulation of outrage by compounding as many negative terms
as possible, which in turn emphasizes the negative outgroup representation. In
example (23), a similar effect is achieved to some degree through alliteration of
“outright outrage.”
The traditional rhetorical appeal in these examples is again mainly
emotional. In examples (23) and (24), Hannity effectively makes the victims
relatable and likeable by describing them as “those of us that drive SUV’s,”
“parents,” “grandparents,” and “veterans,” before describing how the democrats or
liberals have offended them. Portraying the targets of the insults as people who are
relatable and generally viewed positively reflects badly on the ones who are credited
with the insult. Furthermore, the attacks in these instances are not credited to any one
person but more generally to liberals (examples (23) and (25)) or democrats
(examples (24) and (26)). The repetition and accumulation of insults then increases
44
the feeling that democrats and liberals as groups are against us SUV drivers,
grandparents, parents, and veterans.
An interesting factor worth noting is that strictly speaking only in
examples (23) and (25) do the speakers identify themselves as those who have been
victims of an attack. In examples (24), (26), and (27) it is more a case of outrage over
others being attacked; the use of the pronouns “them” and “they” disassociates the
speaker from the offended as in, “They are calling them un-American. Unpatriotic”
(example (27)). On the one hand, it might seem that in these instances the ingroup
representation is, if not completely lacking, certainly less pronounced than the
negative outgroup representation. On the other hand, the reactions to the attacks
presuppose that Tea Partiers are indeed patriots; otherwise the attacks would not be
unfair. Thus, these victimizing outcries implicitly contain positive ingroup
representation.
Although my focus is on the conservatives’ use of flag-wavers, it is
worth mentioning that of the ten overall instances of liberals using flag-wavers, six
could be counted in the “Victimization” category. This and the fact that there is a
category “Victimization” suggest that both sides use patriotic appeal in a derisive
manner. Moreover, both sides take offense when they are accused of lacking
patriotism.
6.2.3
Attacking Liberals
This section is dedicated to the analysis of how liberals are represented through the
use of flag-wavers on Hannity (& Colmes). Because many of the victimization
examples related to the Tea Party movement, I feel that it is natural to start by taking
a look at how flag-wavers are used in the context of the Occupy Wall Street
movement. As different as the two movements may be ideologically, as movements,
they are in some ways comparable to each other (TIME: Scherner 2011-10-18).
45
(28) HANNITY: Jedediah, I look at the video and I look at these comments, and I'm
thinking this is the modern Democratic Party. This is Barack Obama who he
is supporting. This is who Nancy Pelosi is supporting.
JEBEDIAH BILA: “Yes, it's amazing how profoundly anti-American. So much of
the sentiment coming from there and you contrast that with the Tea Party,
which is just pro constitution, pro- American. And you look at the media
spin of both of those things and you have the protesters on Wall Street
being revered, and you have the Tea Party being demonized.” (COCA:
Hannity 2011)
(29) HANNITY: “But when 34 percent of that group are convinced that America,
this country, is no better than al Qaeda – “
MICHAEL MEYERS: “And you can go on a college campus and get the same
sort of sentiment.”
HANNITY: “Is that an anti-American sentiment”?
MEYERS: “You might get it among other class. It's not my point of view. It's
not your point of view. It's their point of view.”
RICH LOWRY: “They are comparing us with a terrorist organization is antiAmerican on its face.” (COCA: Hannity 2011)
Because Occupy Wall Street is a relatively new movement, examples (28) and (29)
are the only examples that relate to it and they are from the same episode of Hannity.
It is clear that in both examples Occupy Wall Street is viewed mainly in a negative
light. However, it is interesting that the way the Occupiers are portrayed echo the
sentiments that were deemed outrageous and hurtful in examples (24)–(27).
In example (28) after Hannity likens the Occupiers to Barack Obama
and the Democratic Party, Bila highlights how amazingly profoundly anti-American
the Occupy movement is, thus, by association, labeling Obama and the Democratic
Party as anti-American. Furthermore, in example (29) there is a false sense of
innocence in Hannity’s question; “Is that [comparing America to al Qaeda] an antiAmerican sentiment?” This is a suggestive question, which implicitly offers
argumentative support for the view that Occupiers are anti-American. Meyers tries to
avoid answering the question which is followed by conservative Rich Lowry with an
easy task of affirming that it is an anti-American sentiment, which then effectually
labels occupiers as anti-American. Examples (28) and (29) then demonstrate how
Hannity sets the stage for his conservative guests who can easily attack the patriotism
46
of liberals and thus affirm a narrative of conservative patriotism. The same kind of
leading can be seen in a previous example (24), and to some extent in example (26).
There is a noticeable difference in the traditional rhetorical appeal if
compared to previous ((23)–(27)) examples. Instead of appealing to emotions, these
attacks have argumentative support, which could appeal to the audience through
logic. In example (28) the logical appeal is highly dependent on the credibility of the
speaker, but in example (29) the appeal is logical although the question itself is
suggestive. Then again labeling Occupiers as anti-American is an effort to elicit a
negative emotional response to the Occupiers.
In fairness, I want to acknowledge that this was a panel discussion with
Michael Meyers representing the liberal point of view. Meyers at one point says, “I
do not believe that the Wall Street protesters are anti-American in any way. They
are expressing our point of view –“ (COCA: Hannity 2011, emphasis mine). But it is
a half-hearted defense as after being interrupted, he contradicts his earlier defense by
saying: “I happen to disagree with their point of view. But that's what we do in
America. We disagree. We protest” (ibid).
Examples (23)–(29), already, reveal a fundamental difference in the
views of what each ideology considers “American” or “patriotic”. Despite these
seemingly irreconcilable differences between the views, both sides seem comfortable
in engaging in debates with this kind of rhetoric. Moreover, there is a clear narrative
perhaps best exemplified by Jebediah Bila in example (28) in which she represents
the Tea Partiers (conservatives) as pro-constitution and pro-American and the
Occupiers (liberals) as profoundly un-American.
The contempt of the patriotism of the Occupy Wall Street movement is
clearly evident. However, in earlier examples (21) and (22), Bush and Romney deemphasized the importance of patriotism as a factor in disagreements with political
opponents. In the following examples (30)–(35), there are specific attacks on the
patriotism of liberals similar to the ones in examples (28) and (29). Examples (30)–
(32) are from three different people who are in the show talking about the 2008
presidential elections; more specifically they address the patriotism of Barack and
Michelle Obama.
47
(30) ANDREW CARD: “I'm taking the words that she [Michelle Obama] said and
giving it an interpretation that I think is credible. That doesn't mean that I
think she is less than a patriot. I don't think that her words represented
words that a patriot would say.” (COCA: Hannity & Colmes 2008)
(31) DICK MORRIS: “The point is that, when you look at Obama' s relationship
with [Reverend Jeremiah] Wright and all of these negatives that flow from
it, it starts with an issue of patriotism. Relatively few people are going to
say that he's not a patriotic American. But a lot of people are going to say
that he's not credible in the way that he's dealing with it, and a lot of
people are going to say that he's not strong enough to be president based
on how he's dealing with it.” (COCA: Hannity & Colmes 2008)
Example (30) is interesting because in it Andrew Card, Bush’s former White House
Chief of Staff, says that he does not believe that Michelle Obama is not a patriot and
then indirectly attacks her patriotism. Thus there is a denial of an attack, followed by
an attack. The pattern actually resembles the one in examples (21) and (22). The
difference is that in example (30) Card attacks Michelle Obama’s patriotism,
whereas in example (21) Bush simply says that his opponents are wrong, and in
example (22) Romney says that Barack Obama’s comments are counterproductive.
In these examples ((21), (22), and (30)) the criticism relates to a specific action and
as such appeals to the logic of the audience.
In example (31), Dick Morris says that there are relatively few people
who say Obama is not patriotic. However, there is a strong implication that there
may be more people who feel that way as he argues that patriotism is in fact an issue.
Here the attack is actually followed by a conciliatory effort. It seems that there is a
strategy, with some variations, of explicit denial of an attack on patriotism followed
by criticism. This, in turn, can be explained in terms of positive self-representation
and negative other-representation where the denial of the attack on patriotism acts as
conciliatory effort; in van Dijk’s terms this is called impression management.
48
(32) HANNITY: “But yet, he's [Barack Obama] got advisors. He's got, you know,
speechwriters. He's got political consultants. They say, " You'd better put
that flag pin on. That's going to prove you patriotic. " And you know what I
think is missing? Where are his core values? Where is his heart? Where is
his decision making? If he really thought that he doesn't have to wear it
because it's not a real indication of patriotism, why doesn't he stand by his
views”? (COCA: Hannity’s America 2008)
Example (32) relates to the lapel pin controversy, which I introduced earlier in the
paper (section 3.2) as a case of a seemingly trivial matter growing into a controversy.
What makes example (32) interesting is how this inconsequential action of not
wearing a flag lapel pin, and then after criticism deciding to wear it, becomes a
matter that touches on the “core values”, “heart”, “decision making”, and
“patriotism” of a presidential candidate. In van Dijk’s terms this example consists of
a hyperbolic attack, with argumentative support, on the outgroup by attribution to
personality rather than to context. As Hannity uses argumentative support, it could be
argued that he appeals to the logic of the audience. However, I argue that in this case
the appeal to logic is not convincing to the audience if they do not deem the speaker
credible; thus the credibility of the speaker is made more important than the use of
logic as a means of persuasion.
The following examples (33)–(35) are the ones with the most explicit
and derisive attacks against the patriotism of liberals. The factor that distinguishes
these examples from the previous ones is that these target liberals more generally
rather than targeting a specific action, person or a group of people. It might be worth
noting that Ann Coulter is not known for her tact but rather for her volatile rhetoric
and of her books with titles like Demonic: How the Liberal is Endangering America
(2011) and Guilty: Liberal Victims and Their Assault on America (2009).
49
(33) HANNITY: “That's the case that you lay out in the book. And I think it's pretty
compelling because like in all Ann Coulter books, you back up and you
source and you say, " Go look at it and make the decision for yourself. "
You say liberals want to be able to attack America without anyone making
an issue of it. Patriotism is vitally important but somehow impossible to
measure. Liberals will oppose the military, the national flag, and defense,
but if you call them on it, you're a kook and a nut.”
ANN COULTER: “That's right. I mean, that's part of the point of this. Liberals
go ballistic when anyone points out that they're not as patriotic as
Republicans. They feel free that Republicans aren't as good as Democrats
on civil rights, aren't as good on the poor, aren't as good on women's
issues. Why is this the one issue on which we are not allowed to compare
the relative patriotism of the two parties? It's because they invented the
myth of McCarthyism to stop anyone from ever noticing that they are
constantly rooting against their own country.” (COCA: Hannity & Colmes
2003)
(34) HANNITY: “The people from Crown Forms sent out this press release: "
Treason, " Ann Coulter's shocking new book proves liberals are antiAmerican. I read the book. You do make distinctions. You're not talking
about all liberals.”
COULTER: “Are you defending your friend [Colmes] again? That's so cute.”
HANNITY: “I am not defending him. You don't mean all liberals are antiAmerican. That's not what you wrote in that book”?
COULTER: “Every liberal I talked about, I would say.”
HANNITY: “But there's a distinction.”
COULTER: “But you're fixated on people who are -- I think you would agree,
are merely stupid and naive who call themselves liberals but aren't with
the whole program of being against fighting the war on terrorism or
conspiring with the Soviet spies.” (COCA: Hannity & Colmes 2003)
(35) COULTER: “I can't talk without you people jumping in. Or what Jane Fleming
has to say. I think -- I think people who actually care about America and
would like America to win, as opposed to the Democrats, who would like
America to lose, that's not patriotic, Jane.” (COCA: Hannity & Colmes
2007)
The attacks against liberal patriotism are blatant and direct in examples (33)–(35).
There is argumentative support for the attacks and although the legitimacy of those
arguments might be contested by liberals, they are present. Hannity’s admission that
50
“patriotism is impossible to measure” (example (33)) is followed by arguments as to
why liberals are not patriotic. However, none of those arguments address the liberal’s
lack of love or respect for the United States. Instead, Hannity argues that liberals lack
patriotism because: “Liberals will oppose the military, the national flag, and
defense,” which would indicate that patriotism as a concept would revolve around
military issues and the American flag. My interpretation of what Hannity means is
that liberals are generally seen as being against laws that prevent the burning of the
American flag, which is now a protected right as an expression of free speech, and
that liberals are generally seen as opposing excessive military spending. These
factors then, according to Hannity, demonstrate the liberals’ lack of patriotism. In
relation to the denotative meaning of the word patriotic, it is easy to understand
Hannity’s point of view that burning a flag is not exhibiting devotion to the country.
However, it would be intellectually dishonest to suggest that liberals, in general,
want to burn American flags; when for most liberals it is purely a question of
freedom of speech, which is protected by the First Amendment to the constitution.
This is a great example of differences in the interpretations of what patriotism is; one
side emphasizing compliance to authority (represented by the American flag), and
the other side emphasizing personal liberty and freedom.
Examples (33) and (34) are from the same episode of Hannity &
Colmes. Considering the outrage that the conservatives felt when their patriotism was
questioned, it is interesting to note not only the proud declaration of their own
patriotism but also the scornful condemnation of the liberal’s lack of patriotism.
What is particularly interesting in these examples is that there is no impression
management in these attacks, although in example (34) Hannity offers Coulter a
chance for one, twice.
Coulter’s assertion in example (35) that the Democrats are not patriotic
because they would like America to lose is obviously a case of negative outgroup
representation. The argumentation borders on naivety in its simplicity. However, the
same sentiment is present in example (33), in which Coulter calls McCarthyism a
myth and accuses Democrats of “rooting against their own country.” Example (35)
is a great illustration of how polarized America is at the moment.
51
6.2.4
Broader Contexts
In this section I will briefly discuss the broader contexts in which these flag-wavers
were used. As Table 6 exhibits, I found four context categories in which flag-wavers
were most frequently used. There is some overlap between the sections as it is
conceivable that, for example, the presidential candidate’s resolve to win a war is
discussed in terms of patriotism; meaning that the instance would be in two columns;
“Presidential Elections” and “Wars and Military.”
Table 6: Conservatives' Use of Flag-wavers on Hannity (& Colmes) by Context
Flag-waver
Victimization
Patriot
0
Patriots
0
Patriotism
2
Patriotic
0
Unpatriotic
2
Anti-American
0
Un-American
8
Overall
12
Liberals
6
Tea Party
1
3
1
1
2
0
7
15
0
Presidential
Elections
3
0
4
2
0
7
1
17
1
Wars and
Defense
1
1
2
2
0
4
0
10
6
Overall Uses
4
5
8
5
3
18
8
61
10
In terms of context, flag-wavers were used most in the context of presidents and
presidential elections, with 17 instances. Although the data may or may not be a
balanced sampling of how often flag-wavers occur and in what contexts, it is
indicative of the importance of perceived patriotism in American electoral politics.
Still, discussing the patriotism of presidential candidates seems somewhat peculiar as
typically presidential candidates have spent their lives serving their country in one
way or another.
All of the 17 instances in the context of presidents and presidential
elections followed a pattern of positive ingroup representation and/or negative
outgroup representation. This goes to show the consistency in which the conservative
pundits on Hannity (& Colmes) stick to their talking points. In example (36), there is
speculation of democratic presidential candidates not being able to proficiently
exhibit their patriotism, with the implication that a Republican candidate would not
52
have the same problem. Thus, example (36) is a good example of both a positive
ingroup and a negative outgroup representation.
(36) BILL BENNETT: “And it is on this I think that a lot of the presidential debate
will turn. And I think it should turn. Because one's attitude toward the
country, toward our soldiers, toward what is going on, I think one of the
indicators was that ‘ Betray Us ‘ ad. It just rang wrong. A guy wrote an
essay the other day and said one of the problems with Democrats is the
only time they use the word patriotism: is when is preceded by the words ‘
impugn my. ‘ You have got to be able use it in a more full-throated way.”
(COCA: Hannity & Colmes 2007)
Another frequent context for flag-wavers was the Tea Party movement with 15
instances; many of which have already been discussed to some extent in this paper.
The emerging pattern was that people who participate in the Tea Party movement are
regular people and patriots, and that their patriotism should be defended if someone
doubts it. It would be easy to argue that Hannity is giving a voice to a marginalized
group of people. Indeed, calling the people that go to Tea Party events un-American
and unpatriotic could effectually marginalize them to a fringe radical group in the
minds of the public. Hannity and other conservatives defend Tea Partiers without
necessarily identifying themselves as group members. However, the tables are turned
in discussions relating to the Occupy Wall Street movement; with the distinction that
this data indicates that Hannity and others try to make the Occupiers look like a
representative group of the Democratic Party (example (28)) and not a marginal
group. When the Occupiers are then portrayed as anti-American, the attribution, by
logical extension, applies to the whole Democratic Party.
The broader context of “Wars and Defense” consists of instances
relating to national security, to military efforts in the Middle East, and to the
Intelligence Community. Some instances of the “Wars and Defense” category have
been discussed earlier in terms of how they were used (examples (19), (20), (22),
(33), (35)). Overall there were only ten instances in which the context even loosely
relates to this category. Arguably the most interesting of these, yet to be discussed,
was a reaction to a non-binding resolution passed by the House of Representatives
opposing President Bush’s decision to send more troops to Iraq (San Francisco
Chronicle 2007-02-16), which Newt Gingrich described as “a victory to the anti-
53
American side” (COCA: Hannity & Colmes 2007). This is a good example of how
conservatives distinguish themselves as patriots because they support the President
and the troops. Six out of the ten instances consisted of either applauding the
conservatives’ support of the war efforts and the military or somehow deriding the
lack of support by liberals. The exceptions were Mitt Romney saying that those who
oppose the war are patriots, two instances of Hannity declaring the United Nations as
anti-American and one relating to (anti-American) bombs built in Iran.
6.3 Similarities and Differences
In this section, I will briefly discuss the similarities and differences in how flagwavers were used on The O’Reilly Factor and Hannity (& Colmes). There are
striking differences in the use of flag-wavers between the shows. Both hosts have
their own styles of narrating, and the obvious differences in show format are also a
factor. As Hannity (& Colmes) is more about discussions and debates than The
O’Reilly Factor there was a notable difference in terms of who used the flag-wavers.
In my data there were no instances of liberals using flag-wavers on “The O’Reilly
Factor.” Indeed, on The O’Reilly Factor it was the host himself in 95 percent of the
cases, whereas, on Hannity (& Colmes), Hannity amassed only 33 percent of the
overall flag-wavers, as exhibited in Table 7. Although, it has to be kept in mind that
these figures may or may not be from representative samplings, they are a safe
indication that O’Reilly on his show is more likely to be the one using flag-wavers
than Hannity on his.
Table 7: Comparative Distribution of Flag-wavers on the Two Shows
Flag-waver
Patriot
Patriots
Patriotism
Patriotic
Unpatriotic
Anti-American
Un-American
Overall
"The Factor"
"H (& C)"
Conservatives Conservatives
18
4
45
6
1
11
8
7
0
3
15
16
4
8
91
55
Bill O'Reilly
Sean Hannity
18
45
0
7
0
15
1
86
1
1
6
3
0
7
4
22
54
The obvious and expected result was that on Hannity’s and O’Reilly’s shows there
was an abundance of instances with the positive ingroup and negative outgroup
representation. O’Reilly was a little more open as to whom he would credit as having
exhibited patriotism when compared to the conservatives on Hannity (& Colmes),
who did not give liberals any credit for their patriotism. Furthermore, there was not a
single instance of negative representations of patriotism directed at conservatives or
Republicans on either hosts’ shows.
On The O’Reilly Factor the use of positive flag-wavers was very much
centered on the segment “Pinheads & Patriots.” More specifically it was charity and
humanitarian efforts that earned the label “patriot,” and even some Democrats or
liberals earned the label. My analysis on Hannity (& Colmes) focused on
conservatives’ use of flag-wavers. Of the 55 instances of flag-wavers there were two
instances of positive representation of liberals. However, as I argued before those
instances were produced by politicians who do not want to alienate voters. The use of
flag-wavers in a positive manner was more diverse, with five categories, and there
was a clearer bias toward conservatives.
Interestingly, on both hosts’ shows there were groups whose patriotism
was taken for granted. On The O’Reilly Factor American soldiers were designated as
“patriots“ at face value, even if they faced criminal charges for their actions during
their service. On Hannity the Tea Partiers’ patriotism was similarly accepted at face
value. The Tea Partiers patriotism was highlighted mostly through victimization.
In terms of using flag-wavers in a negative fashion conservatives on
The O’Reilly Factor and Hannity (& Colmes) were consistent in that they attacked
only liberals. In the data there was not a single instance of a conservative belittling or
questioning other conservatives’ patriotism. Liberals were, as shown, attacked again
and again. On The O’Reilly Factor the majority of negative uses of flag-wavers were
aimed at liberal Hollywood figures and the liberal press, namely the New York Times.
On Hannity (& Colmes) the majority of attacks were directed against Barrack Obama
but also against liberals more generally.
There were clear differences in the broader contexts in which the flagwavers were used. I could find only one broader context which was someway present
on The O’Reilly Factor and on Hannity (& Colmes) and that was military issues. Yet,
even in the context of the military, there was a clear difference in both the way and
55
the purpose with which flag-wavers were used. On Hannity (& Colmes) the
conservatives applauded themselves for being patriots because they supported the
troops and the military efforts, whereas O’Reilly enhanced his image of being a
patriot by crediting the actual troops with the designation.
Another interesting finding was that while O’Reilly avoided calling
anyone unpatriotic or anti-American as such, he would have no problems describing
their actions as not being patriotic or as feeding anti-American sentiments. There
were similar instances on Hannity & (Colmes) but also instances of attacks
specifically on the lack of patriotism of liberals. Still, neither O’Reilly nor Hannity
used the word unpatriotic in their criticisms of liberals. This again could be
interpreted as one of the legacies of McCarthyism.
In terms of traditional rhetorical appeal, I found that when
conservatives on Hannity (& Colmes) used flag-wavers in a negative manner, they
were more likely to use argumentative support and thus appeal to the logical powers
of the audience. In contrast when conservatives were using flag-wavers more
positively to describe the ingroup, there was typically no argumentative support and
thus it seemed to appeal more to the audience’s emotions. On The O’Reilly Factor
during “Pinheads & Patriots” O’Reilly explains the reasons why he thinks someone
is a patriot, thus appealing to the logic of the audience, albeit the reasoning seemed
somewhat arbitrary. As flag-wavers are emotionally charged words, it is difficult to
argue that their use would not be intended to affect the audience’s emotions as well.
Still, it should be kept in mind that all of the three means of persuasion work
dynamically together and the dominance of one does not diminish the importance of
the other two.
7
Conclusions
It is challenging to make far-reaching conclusions based on this relatively small
amount of data. Any conclusions of broader patterns regarding the behavior of
conservative-tilted media would certainly be an overreach. However, on a smaller
scale the study has succeeded in affirming the hypothesis of the study, which was
that the ways in which flag-wavers are used on Hannity’s and O’Reilly’s shows
perpetuate the image of conservatives as patriots.
56
Although CDA scholars fairly rarely use corpus data, the combination
of the data and methodology in this study can be considered a success. Certainly,
consistencies and patterns emerged during the analysis and the combination of
corpus-based data with methods from critical discourse analysis and rhetorical
studies yielded meaningful results. I hope that my research has proven that this type
of method is a viable one for those who want to explore how the media manipulates
representations based on ideology.
The main goal of this study was to uncover if and how the use of flagwavers on the Fox News Channels’ programs, The O’Reilly Factor and Hannity (&
Colmes), support Nunberg’s assertion that conservatives have claimed dominion over
patriotism. The premise of the paper was that by examining the use of flag-wavers,
patterns of how and to what effect overtly patriotic rhetoric is used could be found.
By analyzing those patterns underlying ideological beliefs would be discovered,
which would then reveal how the shows perpetuate the image of conservatives as
patriots. The analysis was based on the quantitative analysis of broader contexts and
qualitative approaches of CDA and traditional rhetorical analysis. These approaches
gave me ample tools with which to examine the data. The methodology was based on
the assumption that CDA would offer the tools for textual analysis, and traditional
rhetorical analysis would offer the basic terminology for analyzing how the messages
are intended to affect the audience. Analyzing broader contexts helped, first, in
finding and determining the consistencies and patterns in how flag-wavers were used
and, second, in determining what kind of narratives they form.
The most obvious pattern, present on both The O’Reilly Factor and
Hannity (& Colmes), was positive ingroup representation and negative outgroup
representation, where conservatives or conservative values formed the ingroup and
liberals or Democrats the outgroup. On The O’Reilly Factor there were some
deviations from this pattern as some liberals were also labeled as patriots. However,
there was a way of explaining that ideologically as positive ingroup representation.
On Hannity (& Colmes) the only times there were deviations from the expected
pattern was when politicians wanted to make sure that they could not be construed as
having belittled someone’s patriotism. On both shows all instances of negative uses
of flag-wavers were, without exception, ideologically biased in favor of
conservatism.
57
As for the emerging narrative patterns, on Hannity (& Colmes) the
clearest lesson was that conservatives are by default patriots. Conservatives seldom
used argumentative support whenever they described conservatives with flag-wavers,
but they would get offended if any conservatives’ patriotism was questioned. Instead
they would use argumentative support to prove that liberals are either not patriotic or
at least not as patriotic as conservatives. On The O’Reilly Factor the biggest
revelation was that the segment “Pinheads & Patriots” allowed O’Reilly to judge, in
very loosely defined terms, what he deemed patriotic behavior as if he was an actual
authority on patriotism. It was also interesting how often on The O’Reilly Factor the
media critique of the more liberal media and Hollywood movies and figures was
focused on questioning their patriotism. The consistent negative representation of
liberal patriotism in conservative news shows could be a clue as to why 80 percent of
conservatives view themselves as being more patriotic than the average American.
More importantly, these findings strongly support Nunberg’s view of conservatives
treating patriotism as a gated community.
Part of the hypothesis of this study was that at least some flag-wavers
will be used in senses that are not found in dictionaries. This was to some extent
confirmed in the segment “Pinheads & Patriots” on The O’Reilly Factor in which
O’Reilly consistently labeled charitable people as patriots. Other instances of
peculiar uses of flag-wavers were the patriotic dance and evaluation of John
Lennon’s patriotism. On Hannity (& Colmes) consistent misuse of any of the flagwavers could not be found. However, there was one instance of Hannity diagnosing a
lack of patriotism through a lack of support for the military and a lack of support for
legal protection of the American flag; not through love, respect and duty to the
country.
The consistencies in positive ingroup versus negative outgroup
representation make it clear that flag-wavers are not used at random but that both
shows have a point to make about patriotism as a conservative virtue. On both shows
flag-wavers were used to promote conservatives and conservative values or to
denigrate liberals. The consecutive airing times of the two shows on prime time
could have the effect of further amplifying that perception.
As stated before, it is difficult to make definitive, far-reaching
conclusions on the basis of this study. Indications of conservatives using overtly
patriotic rhetoric to enhance the image of their patriotism are clear, but it would be
58
an interesting and a worthy endeavor to do a more extensive study with more opinion
programs with a conservative bias. Likewise, it would be interesting to see a
contrastive study of opinion programs with a liberal bias, like “Countdown with
Keith Olberman,” “Real Time with Bill Maher, or “The Rachel Maddow Show,” and
how the use of flag-wavers differs from the conservative shows. The method could
be applied to study the use of patriotic rhetoric in other media formats like
newspapers and magazines, or to study how dramatic events like the attacks on 9/11
influence the use of patriotic rhetoric.
59
REFERENCES
Ansolabehere, Stephen and Iyengar, Shanto (1995). Going Negative: How Political
Advertisements Shrink & Polarize the Electorate. New York: The Free
Press.
Aristotle (ca. 350 BCE). Rhetoric. Book I, Chapter 2. Trans Roberts, W. Rhys
[1954]. http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/rhetoric.1.i.html (Accessed 201304-22).
Berlet, Chip and Matthew N. Lyons (2000). Right Wing Populism in America: Too
Close for Comfort. New York: The Guilford Press.
Biber, Douglas, Susan Conrad, and Randi Reppen ([1998] 2000). Corpus
Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bowen, Michael (2011). The Roots of Modern Conservatism: Dewey, Taft, and the
Battle for the Soul of the Republican Party. Chapel Hill: The University
of North Carolina Press.
Brock, H. Woody (2012). American Gridlock: Why the Right and Left Are Both
Wrong – Commonsense 101 Solutions to the Economic Crisis. Hoboken,
NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
http://books.google.fi/books?id=Pe0xfUsoGLgC&printsec=frontcover&h
l=fi&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
(Accessed 2012-03-26).
Ceaser, James W. (2011). Designing Polity: America’s Constitution in Theory and
Practice. Plymouth, UK: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.
Condor, Susan, Christian Tileagă, and Michael Billig (2013). “Political Rhetoric”.
Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, Huddy, L., Sears, D.O. and
Levy, J.S. (eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
http://www.academia.edu/1797968/Political_Rhetoric (Accessed 201210-30)
60
Conway, Mike, Maria Elizabeth Grabe, and Kevin Grieves (2007). “Villains, Victims
and Virtuous in Bill O’Reilly’s ‘No Spin Zone’: Revisiting World War
Propaganda Techniques”. Journalism Studies, Vol. 8, 2/2007 (197–223).
Routledge. http://journalism.indiana.edu/wpcontent/uploads/wpMain_/file/oreillyjourstud07.pdf (Accessed 2013-0327).
De Tocqueville, Alexis ([1835] 2004). Democracy in America. Trans. Goldhammer,
Arthur. New York: Literary Classics of the United States.
Fairclough, Norman (1995). Media Discourse. London: Hodder Arnold.
Farber, David (2010). The Rise and Fall of the Modern American Conservatism: A
Short History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Fetto John (2011-12-07). “RightTube LeftTube: Political Leanings of TV Viewers”.
Experian Simmons Group. http://www.experian.com/blogs/marketingforward/2011/12/07/redtube-bluetube-the-political-leanings-of-tvviewers/ (Accessed 2012-05-04)
Franken, Al. (2004) Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced
Look at the Right. New York: Plume.
Gallagher, Gary W. (2011). “Robert E. Lee's Conflicted Loyalties”. Civil War Times,
10/2011, Vol. 50, issue 5 (23–25).
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=0e4d6728-cfe2-42ec-9275bacd4d3d0440%40sessionmgr104&vid=1&hid=118&bdata=JnNpdGU9
ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=a9h&AN=64493592
(Accessed 2013-02-20).
Gelpi, Christopher, Laura Roselle, and Brooke Barnett (2012). "Polarizing Patriots:
Divergent Responses to Patriotic Imagery in News Coverage of
Terrorism." American Behavioral Scientist. Spring 2012.
http://www.duke.edu/~gelpi/PolarizingPatriots.pdf (Accessed 2012-0503).
Keller, Simon (2005). ”Bad Faith” Ethics. Vol. 114, 3/2005 (563–592). The
University of Chicago Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/428458
(Accessed 2013-03-26).
McEnery, Tony and Andrew Wilson ([1996] 2005). Corpus Linguistics. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press Ltd.
61
McMillan English Dictionary: For Advanced Learners ([2002] 2004). Oxford:
Macmillan Publishers ltd.
New Oxford American Dictionary (3rd Ed.) ([2010] 2012). Stevenson, Angus and
Lindberg, Christine A. (Eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195392883.00
1.0001/acref-9780195392883 (Accessed 2013-04-17)
Nunberg, Geoffrey (2004). Going Nucular: Language, Politics, and Culture in
Confrontational Times. New York: Public Affairs.
Nunberg, Geoffrey (2006). “This Isn’t Patriotism”, Los Angeles Times (2006-09-09).
http://www.latimes.com/news/la-oe-nunberg9sep09,0,2052170.story
(Accessed 2012-03-12).
Nunberg, Geoffrey (2009). The Years of Talking Dangerously. New York: Public
Affairs. http://books.google.fi/books?id=R8MUMX9f2gC&lpg=PP1&dq=the%20years%20of%20talking%20dangerously&hl=f
i&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=the%20years%20of%20talking%20dangerous
ly&f=false (Accessed 2012-03-12).
O’Reilly, Bill (2010). Pinheads and Patriots: Where You Stand in the Age of Obama.
New York: William Morrow & Company.
Paul, Ron (2011). “Patriotism”. Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues that Affect Our
Freedom (218–221). New York: Grand Central Publishing.
Schrecker, Ellen (1994). The Age of McCarthyism: A Brief History with Documents.
Bedford Books. Boston, MA.
Smith, Tom W. and Kim Seokho (2006). “National Pride in Comparative
Perspective: 1995/96 and 2003/04”. International Journal of Public
Opinion Research. Vol. 18, issue 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
http://publicdata.norc.org:41000/gss/DOCUMENTS/REPORTS/Cross_N
ational_Reports/CNR26.pdf (Accessed 2013-04-03).
Stoner, Mark and Sally Perkins (2005). Making Sense of Messages: A Critical
Apprenticeship in Rhetorical Criticism. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Company.
Van Dijk, Teun A. (1995). “Ideological Discourse Analysis”. The New Courant,
4/1995, Ventola, Eija and Solin, Anna (Eds.) (135–161). Helsinki:
Department of English, University of Helsinki, 1995.
62
Van Dijk, Teun A. (1998). Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: Sage
Publications.
Van Dijk, Teun A. (2001) “Critical Discourse Analysis”. Handbook of Discourse
Analysis, Tannen, D., Schiffrin D., and Hamilton H. (Eds.) (352–353).
Oxford: Blackwell, 2001.
http://www.discourses.org/OldArticles/Critical%20discourse%20analysis
.pdf (Accessed 2013-04-16)
Van Dijk, Teun A. ([2004] 2006).”Ideology and Discourse Analysis”. Journal of
Political Ideologies, 6/2006, (115–140). London: Routledge, 2006.
http://www.discourses.org/OldArticles/Ideology%20and%20discourse%
20analysis.pdf (Accessed 2012-10-31).
Van Dijk, Teun A. (2009). “Critical Discourse Studies: A Sociocognitive Approach”.
Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, Wodak, Ruth and Meyer,
Michael (Eds.) (62–85). London: Sage.
http://www.discourses.org/OldArticles/Critical%20discourse%20studies.
pdf (Accessed 2012-10-30).
Wodak, Ruth (2003). “Introduction: Theory, Interdisciplinary and Critical Discourse
Analysis”. Critical Discourse Analysis: Theory and Interdisciplinary,
Weiss, Gilbert and Wodak Ruth, (Eds.) (1–32). New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
ONLINE SOURCES
Davies, Mark (2008–). The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 425 million
words, 1990–present. http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/ (Accessed 2012September-October)
FOXNews.com

“FOX Poll: Feeling Patriotic”, FOXNews.com, 2005-06-30.
http://www.FOXnews.com/story/0,2933,161221,00.html (Accessed 2012-0502).

“On Air Personalities: Bill O’Reilly”, FOXNews.com.
http://www.FOXnews.com/on-air/personalities/bill-oreilly/bio/#s=m-q
(Accessed 2012-05-03).
63

“On Air Personalities: Juan Williams”, FOXNews.com.
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/personalities/juan-williams/bio/#s=r-z
(Accessed 2013-03-19).

“On Air Personalities: Sean Hannity”, FOXNews.com.
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/personalities/sean-hannity/bio/#s=h-l
(Accessed 2013-02-03)

“Stephen Colbert Enters the No Spin Zone”, FOXNews.com, 2008-01-19.
http://www.FOXnews.com/story/0,2933,244882,00.html (Accessed 2012-0503).
Gallup

“One in Three Americans ‘Extremely Patriotic’”. Gallup.com, 2010-07-02.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/141110/one-three-americans-extremelypatriotic.aspx#2 (Accessed 2012-09-17).
Hollywood Republican

“Who Is a Republican”, HollywoodRepublican.net.
http://www.hollywoodrepublican.net/who-is-a-republican/ (Accessed 201303-20).
Huffington Post

“Wendy Murphy”. Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wendymurphy (Accessed 2013-03-19).
New York Times

Rutenberg, Jim (2002-10-29). “Fox’s Program Beats Out ‘Larry King Live’”.
New York Times, 2002-10-29.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/29/business/fox-s-program-beats-out-larryking-live.html?ref=seanhannity (Accessed 2013-01-28).

Stanley, Alessandra (2007-01-30). “Waving the Flag at Bunny Ranch”. New
York Times, 2007-01-30.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/30/arts/television/30watc.html?ref=seanha
nnity (Accessed 2013-01-28).

Stelter, Brian (2008-11-24). “Hannity to Go Alone, Without Colmes”. New
York Times, 2008-11-24.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/25/business/media/25fox.html?ref=seanhan
nity (Accessed 2013-01-28)
64

Stelter, Brian (2011-10-09). “Victory Lap for Fox and Hannity”. New York
Times, 2011-10-09. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/business/media/foxnews-and-hannity-at-the-top-after-15-years.html?ref=seanhannity (Accessed
2013-01-28)

Stelter, Brian (2012-04-19). “Fox News Is Set to Renew O’Reilly and
Hannity Through 2016 Elections”. New York Times, 2012-04-19.
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/19/fox-news-is-set-torenew-oreilly-and-hannity-through-2016-elections/ (Accessed 2013-02-22).

Von Zielbauer, Paul (2007). “Green Berets Face Hearing on Killing of
Suspect in Afghan Village”. New York Times, 2007-09-17.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/us/18hearing.html?_r=0 (Accessed
2013-03-20).
PolitiFact.com

“Bill O’Reilly called George Tiller a Baby Killer without Attribution”,
PolitiFact.com, 2009-06-05, http://www.politifact.com/truth-ometer/statements/2009/jun/05/bill-oreilly/bill-oreilly-called-george-tillerbaby-killer/ (Accessed 2012-11-01)
The Telegraph

Harnden, Toby (2010-01-11). “The Most Influential US Conservatives 10081”. The Telegraph; 2010-01-11.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6950971/Themost-influential-US-conservatives-100-81.html (Accessed 2012-10-16).

Harnden, Toby (2010-01-14). “The Most Influential US Conservatives 4021”. The Telegraph; 2010-01-14.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6981437/Themost-influential-US-conservatives-40-21.html (Accessed 2012-10-16).
TIME

Cruz, Gilbert (2008-08-03). “A Brief History of the Flag Lapel Pin”. TIME,
2008-08-03.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1820023,00.html (Accessed
2012-05-02)
65

Scherner, Michael (2011-10-18). “Why Occupy Wall Street and Tea Party
Are Comparable”. TIME, 2011-10-18.
http://swampland.time.com/2011/10/18/why-occupy-wall-street-and-the-teaparty-are-comparable/ (Accessed 2013-02-27)
YouTube

“George W. Bush – 9/11 Bullhorn Speech”. YouTube, uploaded 2009-04-03.
AmericanRhetoricOrig. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7OCgMPX2mE
(Accessed 2012-10-02)